1. Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel as well as Mr. K. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Ms. G. Ete, learned State counsel representing the respondents. 2. Having regard to the facts and the law under issue, both the writ petitions WP(C) No.66(AP)/2015 and WP(C) No.67(AP)/2015 raising common issues are taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner in WP(C) No.66(AP)/2015 is employed in the Department of Food & Civil Supplies in the capacity of Joint Director. Insofar as the petitioner in WP(C) No. 67(AP)/2015 is concerned, he is also an employee in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies as Finance Account Officer. The petitioners in the related writ petitions are aggrieved of the order dated 11.03.2014 issued under the hand of the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby, they were placed under suspension in contemplation of drawal of disciplinary proceedings. 4. At the outset it is stated that both the petitioners are governed under the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules 1965, as amended. The basic prayer of the petitioners is that the order of suspension dated 11.3.2014 is no longer valid in terms of sub-rule (7) of rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. For ready reference sub-rule (6) and sub-rule (7) of rule 10, which is relevant to the instant proceedings is extracted here under : "10. (6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before the expiry of ninety days from the date of order of suspension, on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purposes and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before the expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (5), an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rules (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days." 5. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (5), an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rules (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days." 5. It is the contention of the petitioners that more than a year have elapsed since the date when they were placed under suspension and until this date no steps have been taken by the respondent authority for review of the order of suspension, not to speak of any review for continuation of the order beyond the period prescribed under rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules of 1965. It is also the case of the petitioners that no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated until this date. 6. Ms. G. Ete, learned State counsel submits that she is without any instructions as to whether or not any review had been done by the authority in respect of the order of suspension within the time prescribed under the Rules. 7. It is apparent on the face of the records that the impugned order of suspension was passed way back on 11.3.2014. Categorical statements have also been made in the writ petitions to the effect that despite representations being made before the authority concerned, no steps have been taken towards revoking or review of the order of suspension nor any disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. The contention of the petitioners stands unrebutted until this date. 8. From a bare reading of rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, it appears that an order of suspension is required to be reviewed before the expiry of 90 days from the date of the issue of the order of suspension, on the basis of recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose. The provision for subsequent reviews is also contemplated under rule 10. The purpose for review of an order of suspension is basically for arriving at the decision whether the same is required to be revoked or extended, as the case may be. Under sub-rule (7) of rule 10 it is made clear that unless an order of suspension is extended after review, the same shall not be valid after expiry of the period of ninety days. In this context, Mr. Under sub-rule (7) of rule 10 it is made clear that unless an order of suspension is extended after review, the same shall not be valid after expiry of the period of ninety days. In this context, Mr. M. Pertin, learned senior counsel placed reliance upon the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Dipak Mali, (2010) 2 SCC 222 , wherein the provisions in rule 10 came to be considered by the Apex Court. Mr. M. Pertin, submits that in view of the provisions under the rule 10 and the case referred to, the order of suspension dated 11.3.2014 do not survive any longer, being hit by the provisions under sub-rule (7) of rule 10 of the Rules. 9. Having heard learned counsels for both the parties, on facts and in law, there can be no second opinion that the order of suspension dated 11.3.2014 has spent its force and not sustainable in law any longer in view of the clear mandate in rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 10. In view of the above, the order of suspension dated 11.3.2014 warrants interference which is accordingly done. The order dated 11.3.2014 issued under the hand of the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, is set aside and quashed. Before parting with the case, it is made clear that the respondent authority shall be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners, if so advised. On the setting aside of the order dated 11.3.2014, the petitioners shall be reinstated in service to their respective positions, within a period of 10 days from today. 11. The petitioners are allowed to produce certified copy of this order to the respondent authority for their doing the needful in terms of the direction as indicated above. 12. Both the writ petitions stands allowed accordingly, however, without any order as to costs.