JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. P. Tamphamani, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 20.10.2011 contending inter-alia that this continuing suspension not only amounts to penalising the petitioner but is also contrary to Rule 10 (7) of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 as well as various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court. 3. It has been contended by the petitioner that the provisions of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 are applicable in the State of Manipur and it is by invoking Rule 10(2) of the aforesaid Rules that the petitioner had been placed under suspension w.e.f. 03.10.2011 after the petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR case. As no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the State, this Court will proceed with the presumption that the various Rules under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 are applicable in the State also. 4. The suspension of the petitioner was made after she was detained in custody in connection with FIR Case No. 157(10)2011 under Section 498-A/304-B/306/34-IPC of Lamphel Police Station as permissible under Rule 10(2)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Sub-rule 5(a) of Rule 10 provides that subject to the provisions contained in sub-rule (7), any order of suspension made or deemed to have been made shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so. In other words, the suspension order dated 20.10.2011 issued in respect of the petitioner would continue to remain in force till it is modified or revoked by the authority which issues the suspension order. In the present case, no such order has been issued by the competent authority revoking or modifying the said suspension order. In other words, the suspension order dated 20.10.2011 issued in respect of the petitioner would continue to remain in force till it is modified or revoked by the authority which issues the suspension order. In the present case, no such order has been issued by the competent authority revoking or modifying the said suspension order. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 further provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 10 shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension before expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension on the recommendation of Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass order either extending or revoking the suspension and subsequent review shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension and extension of suspension shall not be made for a period exceeding 180 days at a time. Sub-rule (7) further provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before expiry of ninety days. 5. The petitioner submits that in the present case no such review was undertaken by the competent authority before the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension. It has been submitted that in fact, till date, no such review had been made and since there was no review of the order of suspension, this suspension order dated 20.10.2011 cannot be sustained in terms of sub rule (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Mr. Tamphamani, learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, submits that continuation of the aforesaid suspension order dated 20.10.2011 is not permissible and accordingly liable to be set aside. It is because of this reason that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for setting aside the aforesaid suspension order on the ground that no review had been made in respect of the said suspension order as provided under sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of the Rules and it has been specifically provided under sub-rule (7) that an order of suspension shall not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it is extended after a review for a further period before the expiry of 90 days. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Tamphamani, learned counsel has relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Union of India Vs. Dipak Mali reported in (2010) 2 SCC 222 as well as in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 . In the case of Dipak Mali (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the case of suspension of a driver under the gun factory at Jabalpur pending a departmental inquiry. The said suspension order was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the suspension order was not reviewed as required under the Rules and accordingly the suspension order must be deemed to have lapsed on the expiry of 90 days as provided under sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, which submission was accepted by the Tribunal and accordingly allowed the application. The matter went up to the Supreme Court after the High Court declined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal though some other issues relating to the applicability of sub-rules (6) and (7) of Rule 10 were raised before the High Court in the said case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since admittedly review had not been made within 90 days from the date of suspension, it became invalid after 90 days as neither was there any extension within the said period of 90 days and any subsequent review and extension could not revive the order which had already become invalid after the expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension. In the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dealing with the issue of the continued suspension. In the said case, the delinquent officer was charged with the misconduct of issuing no objection certificates (NOCs) in respect of certain defence lands and was placed under suspension. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed the view that suspension specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and therefore should be of short duration, and if it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning, this would render it punitive in nature. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed the view that suspension specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and therefore should be of short duration, and if it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning, this would render it punitive in nature. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that departmental proceedings may be plagued by delay and in such situations the suspended person suffers from ignominy of insinuations, scorn of society and derision of his department. The Hon’ble Court expressed the desirability of expeditious conclusion of departmental proceeding and held that currency of suspension order should not extend beyond three months and if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/charge-sheet is/or not served on the delinquent officer/employee, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. Mr. Tamphamani also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Sukhendar Reddy Vs. State of A.P. and Anr. reported in (1999) 6 SCC 257 . In the said case the appellant who was a member of the Indian Administrative Service was placed under suspension pending a departmental inquiry in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding against him. It seems there was a related criminal case instituted involving Sections 468, 424, 406 r/w Section 120-B IPC and not only the appellant but several other senior IAS officers were also implicated. However, the investigation was not completed for a long period. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in that context observed that one does not know how long does it take to complete the investigation and since no disciplinary proceeding was contemplated, he cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period particularly in a situation where many more senior officers may ultimately be found involved, but the appellant alone has been placed under suspension. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Government cannot be permitted to resort to selective suspension and accordingly, interfered with the suspension order. 7. On the other hand, Mr. S. Nepolean, learned G.A. has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank and Another Vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola reported in (1997) 4 SCC 1 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Government cannot be permitted to resort to selective suspension and accordingly, interfered with the suspension order. 7. On the other hand, Mr. S. Nepolean, learned G.A. has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank and Another Vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola reported in (1997) 4 SCC 1 . In the said case, the delinquent employee was placed under suspension in connection with the criminal case alleging commission of offences of criminal misconduct by him and cheating by adopting corrupt and illegal means or otherwise abusing his position of obtaining undue pecuniary gains for himself and/or others. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed. The challenge to the suspension was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court observing that merely because 10 years have lapsed since charge sheet has been filed cannot be a ground for allowing the delinquent employee to come back to duty on a sensitive post in the Bank unless he is exonerated on the charge. 8. In Union of India Vs. Rajiv Kumar reported in (2003) 6 SCC 516 , relied upon by Mr. S. Nepolean, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also dealing with the prolonged suspension and held that the period of suspension should not be unnecessarily prolonged but if plausible reason exists and the authorities feels that suspension needs to be continued, merely because it is for a long period will not invalid the suspension. 9. In absence of any affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents as well as production of records, this Court would accept the contention of Mr. P. Tamphamani, learned counsel for the petitioner that reviewing of the suspension order was mandatorily required and since there was no review of the suspension order by the authority as required under sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 before the expiry of 90 days from the effective date of suspension, the impugned suspension order will be considered invalid in terms of sub-rule (7) of Rule 10. This prolonged suspension of the petitioner without holding a review cannot be sustained, as also held in Dipak Mali (supra). As regards the decision relied on by Mr. This prolonged suspension of the petitioner without holding a review cannot be sustained, as also held in Dipak Mali (supra). As regards the decision relied on by Mr. Nepolean, learned G.A. in support of his claim, in Deepak Kumar Bhola (supra), as discussed above, the employee therein was accused of serious criminal misconduct and corruption of money while serving as a clerk-cum-typist in the Bank and the Supreme Court felt that it may not be appropriate to direct reinstatement in the sensitive post unless he is exonerated of the charges and in that case the charge sheet had also been filed. In the present case, the petitioner has not been accused of any criminal misconduct while discharging her official duty. Though the allegation against the petitioner is serious, but it does not pertain to her official discharge of duties. Further, it has been also stated that the charge sheet has now been filed which would mean the investigation must have been concluded. In that view, reinstatement of the petitioner to her former position as Family Health Worker may not have any serious impact or repercussion on the trial which may be initiated against her upon filing of the charge sheet. Similarly, in Rajiv Kumar (supra), the suspended person was also charged of accepting bribe and in the said case the issue involved was about interpretation by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which held that sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the CCS Rules does not contain any provision wherefrom it can be deduced that the deemed suspension for custodial detention extending 48 hours would continue until it is withdrawn. It was held by the Delhi High Court that on a plain reading of the said provision it is clear that the same comes to an end by operation of law after release of the petitioner from detention. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, felt that the said view of the Delhi High Court was not correct and held that an order of suspension does not lose its efficacy and is not automatically terminated the moment the detention comes to an end and the person is set at large. It could be modified and revoked by another order as envisaged under Rule 10(5)(c) and until that order is made, the same continues by operation of Rule 10(5)(a) and the employee has no right to be reinstated in service. It could be modified and revoked by another order as envisaged under Rule 10(5)(c) and until that order is made, the same continues by operation of Rule 10(5)(a) and the employee has no right to be reinstated in service. While dealing with the rules, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the period of suspension should not be unnecessarily prolonged but if plausible reasons exist and the authorities feel that the suspension needs to be continued, merely because it is for a long period that does not invalidate the suspension. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record of the subjective satisfaction of the authorities that the suspension of the petitioner needs to be continued. Accordingly, this Court would hold that the continuation of the suspension of the petitioner cannot be sustained and accordingly the suspension order dated 20.10.2011 is interfered with and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated to service forthwith. 10. As no affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the State respondents, intrigued by the prolonged suspension that too with reference to an FIR case mentioned in the suspension order namely, FIR Case No. 157(10)2011 under Section 498-A/304-B/306/34-IPC of Lamphel Police Station, this Court made an inquiry from counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents about the nature of aforesaid FIR case when it was informed that the aforesaid FIR case was lodged in connection with the suicide committed by one Smt. Lousingam (N) Mongjam (O) Lalita Devi, who was the daughter-in-law of the present petitioner. This disclosure made this Court to call for the relevant records of the case including the case diary to ascertain as to the stage of the investigation of the aforesaid FIR case. The records were duly produced before this Court which were perused by this Court. The records revealed certain shocking facts because of which the Court felt that certain observations may need to be made while disposing of this petition. At the time of final hearing of this case, it was submitted by the counsel for the State that the charge sheet has now been submitted before the competent Court on completion of the investigation though the petitioner has expressed ignorance of filing of any charge sheet before the Court. 11. At the time of final hearing of this case, it was submitted by the counsel for the State that the charge sheet has now been submitted before the competent Court on completion of the investigation though the petitioner has expressed ignorance of filing of any charge sheet before the Court. 11. As per the records submitted before this Court, what had been disclosed is that the aforesaid FIR was registered at the Lamphel Police Station on 03.10.2011 at 2:05 pm on receiving a written report from one Robert Laishram, ASI of Lamphel Police Station stating that during the course of inquiry of an unnatural death case, UD Case No. 12/LPS/2011 dated 19.09.2011 under Section 164 Cr.P.C., some elements of prima facie case for abatement of commitment of suicide by the deceased Smt. Lalita Devi at about 3:00 am on 19.09.2011 were found against her husband who is the son of the petitioner and other relatives which includes the present petitioner. It was stated that there were evidences of physical and mental harassment/cruelty and demand of dowry, which became unbearable to her which might have caused the deceased to commit suicide. The records revealed that in course of the subsequent investigation of the case, it was found that soon after the elopement of the said deceased Smt. Lalita Devi with the son of the petitioner on 26.01.2010 a lot of problems arose between the families of the girl and the petitioner because of which the marriage could not be solemnised. However, after a gap of about 3 (three) months the son of the petitioner again eloped with the said deceased Lalita Devi but the problems continued even after their marriage. It seems on 18.09.2011 at around 9:30 pm after dinner, a heated argument followed by quarrel which even got physical between Mongjam Subhalaxmi Devi, the daughter of the petitioner and the said deceased Lalita and because of the said quarrel the neighbourhood people came to the scene and when the deceased ran away from the house crying for help, she was brought back inside the courtyard of the house with the help of one of the women from the neighbourhood. As per the examination of witnesses it was revealed that the husband of the petitioner was seen to have used a dao (knife) to threaten the deceased to go inside the house and that the petitioner also abused the deceased for not bringing enough dowry. It is also alleged that the petitioner had got the deceased confined inside the house without allowing the deceased to mingle with the neighbourhood most of the time, but the deceased managed to sneak out secretly for a few minutes to share her woes to the neighbourhood. The post mortem and inquest report indicated injury marks on the body of the deceased which indicated physical struggle. There were injury marks on the limbs, torso, left earlobe and upper eyelid which were ante-mortem in nature which indicated that serious struggle had taken place before the deceased died. Though the petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid case, it seems the petitioner’s son who was the husband of the deceased and who is serving as a rifleman in the Manipur Rifles (Rgt. no. 6070099) after having obtained pre-arrest bail had not cooperated with the investigation because of which it slowed and hampered the investigation of the case. It is now stated that the investigating authority has interrogated the husband of the deceased and charge sheet has been filed in the Court. What the records produced before this Court reveal is serious charges of mental and physical harassment of the daughter-in-law of the petitioner by the petitioner and other family members and according to the investigating authority there is prima facie case against the petitioner and other family members of abetting suicide by her daughter-in-law. Further, the slow progress in the investigation was due to non cooperation in the investigation by the son of the petitioner. The relevant portions of the report submitted by the police on 18.05.2016 indicating the aforesaid facts, are reproduced herein-below: “On further examination of some witnesses, it’s been revealed that, the mother-in-law M.(O) Sorojini Devi had subjected her to different forms of harrassment/torture. The mother-in-law is stated to have kept the deceased confined inside the house without letting her mingle with the neighbourhood most of the time and that the deceased used to sneak out secretly for a few minutes to share her woes to the neighbours. The mother-in-law is stated to have kept the deceased confined inside the house without letting her mingle with the neighbourhood most of the time and that the deceased used to sneak out secretly for a few minutes to share her woes to the neighbours. Further in the course of investigation, the injury marks on the limbs, torso, left earlobe and upper eyelid were recorded in the inquest and post mortem reports to be of ante mortem in nature are clear indications of some serious struggle having taken place that night. While in Police custody the in laws revealed that the phone call made by the deceased daughter in laws mobile phone was after dinner but prior to the quarrel that took on the night of 18.09.2011 at @ 9.30 pm. The witnesses who entered the house to stop the quarrel have confirmed that the quarrel at @ 9.30 pm. The father in-law admitted to have used a dao (knife) for threatening his daughter in-law at the time of quarrel. The use of weapon like dao on the slightest provocation by a quarrel that started between his daughter and the deceased daughter in-law has given rise to a doubt about his might have been acts and omissions after the neighbours had left that night. The suspected accused M. Chittaranjan who is the husband of the deceased have evaded arrest by obtaining prearrest bail hence could not be arrested and thoroughly interrogated to dig out indept clue of the case inspite of his well known knowledge about the case. He needs to be arrested and remanded in the police custody for thorough interrogation. On further course of investigation, the accused Mongjam Chittaranjan Singh, who is the husband of the deceased is serving at 1st Bn. Manipur Rifles (Rfn.No.6070099) and gave his service address at Thangmeiband Polem Leikai and Langol Housing Complex type-III/D-3, but the said accused person M. Chittaranjan Singh was not found at given service address when house searches were conducted at the given addresses. The Langol Housing Complex address was left abandoned after arson by the local people and found the uncle of the accused namely Mongjam Shamu at Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai and claimed that he had not seen the accused Mongjam Chittaranjan Singh or the family of the accused for a long time. The house search yielded no result. The Langol Housing Complex address was left abandoned after arson by the local people and found the uncle of the accused namely Mongjam Shamu at Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai and claimed that he had not seen the accused Mongjam Chittaranjan Singh or the family of the accused for a long time. The house search yielded no result. Also contacted the parent unit of the accused Mongjam Chittaranjan Singh which is 1st MR and found that Mongjam Chittaranjan Singh was on leave. Nevertheless a summon was served to the accused Mongjam Chittaranjan Singh through SP-IW and CO of 1st MR requiring the accused to appear before the I.O. on or before 16/05/2016 which the accused failed to do. A second summon was again served on 18.5.2016 requiring the accused Mongjam Chittaranjan Singh through the CO of 1st MR to appear before the I.O. on or before 23.5.2016. Due process of law will be followed so as to enable early examination of the accused person as soon as possible in the interest of thorough and fair investigation of the case and bring to its logical end.” 12. The records produced before this Court thus, reveal a very shocking state of affair. The charges against the petitioner and her relatives are serious, for abetment of suicide as well as charge of causing dowry death punishable under Section 304-B of IPC which would mean that if the prosecution is able to prove as alleged and as indicated in the police report that the daughter-in-law of the petitioner died within 7 (seven) years of her marriage and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the husband or relatives including the petitioner shall be deemed to have caused the death. For various reasons, the investigation could not be concluded though the incident occurred in the year September, 2011 and one of the causes for the delay in investigation as disclosed in the record was the non-cooperation by the son of the petitioner. This Court fails to understand how the son of the petitioner who is working as a Rifleman could have evaded the process of law for such a long period of time. There is also allegation by the family members of the deceased girl that attempts were made to protect the persons responsible for her death. This Court fails to understand how the son of the petitioner who is working as a Rifleman could have evaded the process of law for such a long period of time. There is also allegation by the family members of the deceased girl that attempts were made to protect the persons responsible for her death. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances disclosed, this Court is of the view that the criminal proceeding initiated pursuant to the aforesaid FIR Case No. 157(10)2011 under Section 498-A/304-B/306/34-IPC of Lamphel Police Station, require to be monitored by the appropriate authority till it reaches its logical conclusion, for which this Court directs the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur to monitor the progress of the case from time to time by calling for report from the office of the Directorate of Prosecution, Manipur at least once in 6 (six) months. In this regard, the Manipur State Legal Services Authority may also render necessary assistance as required under law to all including the victim’s family, the prosecution, if necessary, and also may take such actions as permissible under law so that the perpetrators of such heinous crimes and those who are responsible for the death of the girl are brought to justice at the earliest. 13. It is to be mentioned that, though this Court has interfered with the suspension order of the petitioner dated 20.10.2011 on the ground that no review had been made by the competent authority as required under sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, this Court finds that the present case is not an isolated case where the competent authority had not reviewed the suspension order. There seems to be a large number of cases as evident from various orders passed by this Court and relied on by the petitioner, viz., W.P.(C) No. 137 of 2015, W.P. (C) No. 435 of 2015, etc. Therefore, these facts indicate serious lapse on the part of the authorities concerned in failing to conduct or hold review of the suspension orders contrary to the requirements mandated by law as mentioned above. Therefore, these facts indicate serious lapse on the part of the authorities concerned in failing to conduct or hold review of the suspension orders contrary to the requirements mandated by law as mentioned above. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur to collect information from all the departments where such suspension orders have been issued to ensure that necessary review of the suspension orders are undertaken in time as required under sub-rule (6) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Chief Secretary accordingly, may cause issuing appropriate directions for compliance of the mandate of law. This is necessary in view of the fact that there may be cases where the continuation of the suspension of the employee concerned may be highly necessary considering serious charges involved. 14. Petition stands allowed with the aforesaid observation and directions. Copies of this order are to be furnished to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur and the Member Secretary, Manipur State Legal Services Authority for doing the needful.