ORDER The petitioner is working as an attender in the second respondent-college. She has been placed under suspension on 15.5.2014 on the ground of certain misconduct as stated in the order of suspension. Aggrieved by the order of suspension the above writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner’s counsel Sri Prithveesh M.K., contended that the order of suspension has been passed for extraneous reasons namely, earlier the order of termination was passed while she was in service and thereafter by virtue of Court order, she was reinstated. Further, contended that the order of suspension is without application of mind. 3. The learned counsel Sri K.C. Shantakumar representing respondents submitted that he has not filed statement of objections. However, he has filed memo for disposal. In the memo it is stated that enquiry has been initiated by framing charges on 8.7.2014 and it has been sent through speed post to the petitioner and the same has been returned unserved. However, the charge memo has been served on the petitioner’s counsel in the present proceedings during the 2nd week of February 2015. 4. The petitioner’s counsel in support of the case relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another. The Apex Court has held that the employee cannot be placed under suspension for a prolonged period. Extract of the judgment is reproduced herein: “14. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.” Therefore, the petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement since no reasons have been assigned to continue the petitioner under suspension. 5. In view of framing of charge on 8.7.2014, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement, since the object of placing an employee under suspension is to see that he should not tamper witnesses or records. In the present case, the question of tampering records and witnesses do not arise in view of issuance of articles of charges. The latest decision of the Apex Court is crystal clear that the currency of suspension order should not be extended beyond three months. However, it is stated that within this period, the memo of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent Officer/employee, order of suspension is to be revoked. In the present case, though the charge memo was prepared and issued, the same was not served on the petitioner. However, during pendency of the above proceedings, copy of the charge memo has been served on the petitioner’s counsel. 6. The respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings on 8.7.2014 itself and pleaded that the same was not served since the speed post was returned with shara “as no such person return to sender” on 10/11.7.2014. The above writ petition was filed on 22.5.2014 and emergent notice was ordered on 27.5.2014. On 3.6.2014 learned counsel Sri. K.C. Shanth Kumar filed vakalth for Respondents. On 15.7.2014 respondents have filed memo for disposal with reference to initiation of disciplinary proceedings dated 8.7.2014. The above writ petition was filed on 22.5.2014 and emergent notice was ordered on 27.5.2014. On 3.6.2014 learned counsel Sri. K.C. Shanth Kumar filed vakalth for Respondents. On 15.7.2014 respondents have filed memo for disposal with reference to initiation of disciplinary proceedings dated 8.7.2014. In this back ground the respondents have not reviewed the order of suspension nor commenced disciplinary proceedings. Whereas copy of the charge memo dated 8.7.2014 has been served on the counsel for the petitioner only in the 2nd week of February 2015. The provision of law governing suspension of a teacher/employee is reproduced herein: “Employee may be placed under suspension by the managing committee under Section 92(3)(a)(i) of the Karnataka Education Act, which is as follows: “(3) (a) A teacher or other employee may be placed under suspension by the managing committee. (i) Where disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (ii) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial; (b) No such suspension shall remain in force for more than six months: Provided that if the enquiry is contemplated within the period of six months, the Secretary shall report the matter to the Competent Authority, who may permit extension of the period of suspension beyond six months, if he is satisfied that the enquiry could not be so completed due to circumstances beyond the control of the Governing Council (c) The Managing Committee placing an employee under suspension shall forthwith report to the Competent Authority the circumstances in which the order was made; (d) Subject to such rules as may be prescribed, every employee placed under suspension under this Section shall be entitled to such subsistence allowance as may be prescribed.” The Respondents’ counsel has not produced any material to show regarding compliance of Section (3) (b) & (c) of Section 92 of Karnataka Education Act, 1983. Consequently the order of suspension is not existing in the eye of law after six months from the date of suspension order. 7. Suspension has been defined as temporary deprivation of one’s office or position. Suspension does not put an end to the relationship of master and servant between the employer and employee. It simply keeps the employee away from work situation during the pendency of some departmental/domestic/criminal proceedings against him/her. 7. Suspension has been defined as temporary deprivation of one’s office or position. Suspension does not put an end to the relationship of master and servant between the employer and employee. It simply keeps the employee away from work situation during the pendency of some departmental/domestic/criminal proceedings against him/her. The object and purpose of placing an employee under suspension is to keep him away from a position where he can interfere with the conduct of inquiry or tamper with the documentary or oral evidence in any manner, or, where, having regard to the nature of charges against him, it is felt that it would be unsafe to continue to vest in him/her the power of the post. It is a clear principle of natural justice that the delinquent employee when placed under suspension is entitled to represent that the departmental proceedings should be concluded with reasonable diligence and within a reasonable period of time. If such a principle were not to be recognized, it would imply that the executive is being vested a totally arbitrary and unfettered power of placing its officers under disability and distrust for an indefinite duration. The total period of suspension, namely, both in respect of investigation and disciplinary proceedings should not, ordinarily, exceed six months. In exceptional cases, where it may not be possible to adhere to the said time limit of six months, the disciplinary authority or competent authority should undertake to review of suspension by recording reasons to continue the suspension. In so far as review of suspension periodically the Government has issued guideline from time to time like review of suspension once in 3 months or once in six months and prolonged suspension without issue of charge sheet/charge memo. In number of cases Courts of law had interfered and revoked the order of suspension for the reason that no proceedings had been commenced against the suspended employee. In other words suspension of an employee for a long period is not legally sustainable, particularly where there can be no apprehension that employee would be in a position to influence the witnesses or tamper with records. Continued suspension may become unnecessary when there is no possibility of the official concerned tampering with the records or influencing the witnesses. In the present case the charge memo has been issued within three months from the date of suspension order. Continued suspension may become unnecessary when there is no possibility of the official concerned tampering with the records or influencing the witnesses. In the present case the charge memo has been issued within three months from the date of suspension order. However there is no progress in the disciplinary proceedings even after seven months from the date of framing charge. Therefore the respondent should have revoked the order of suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. Hence there is total inaction on the part of the respondent in not complying Section 92(3) (b) & (c) of Karnataka Education Act, 1983 read with the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY vs. UNION OF INDIA Through its Secretary & another CDLJ 2015 SC 129. Continuing the suspension order dated 15.5.2014 (Annexure-A) is without any basis. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is allowed, the order of suspension dated 15.5.2014 (Annexure-A) is set aside. This order will not come in way of completion of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. No order as to cost.