JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J.M.A. Choudhury, learned counsel representing all the respondents. 2. Having regard to the facts in issue, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner is an employee serving under the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Assam in the capacity of Service Engineer at the State Health Transport Organization, Silchar. He was placed under suspension on 14.08.2013 following the provisions under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, in that, he was arrested and detained in custody for more than 48 hours in connection with Chandmari P.S. Case No. 350/2013 registered under Section 498-A of IPC. The said suspension order was issued pending drawal of departmental proceedings. 4. Mr. Bhuyan submits that although the petitioner has been allowed subsistence allowance for the period from 14.08.2013, however, until this date, the departmental proceedings is yet to be drawn up. Also, no steps have been taken by the respondent authority to review the order of suspension to ascertain as to whether continuance of the order of suspension by any further period is required or not. 5. Mr. Choudhury fairly submits that the departmental proceedings against the petitioner had not yet been drawn up. Also, no instructions have been received as regards any review being conducted to ascertain/decide on further continuance of the suspension of the petitioner. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was placed under suspension by Notification dated 14.08.2013 and as on date, it is almost three years without any departmental proceedings being drawn up. 7. For all this period, the petitioner has been allowed to languish under the order of suspension. No genuine efforts have also been taken by the State respondents to cause review of the order of suspension. It is well settled that normally the currency of a suspension order should not ordinarily extend beyond three months. Memorandum of charges should be served within the initial period of three months. In case the charges cannot be drawn up within the aforesaid period, it is incumbent upon the State respondents to revisit the issue and to ascertain whether the continuance of the suspension order is at all required. Also, if extension of the suspension order is found necessary, reasons are also required to be given. 8. In case the charges cannot be drawn up within the aforesaid period, it is incumbent upon the State respondents to revisit the issue and to ascertain whether the continuance of the suspension order is at all required. Also, if extension of the suspension order is found necessary, reasons are also required to be given. 8. In the instant case, none of the requirements as indicated above have been complied with by the State respondents. Although an order of suspension is an administrative order and not by way of punishment, at the same time, the State respondents cannot act arbitrarily and allow a person to suffer suspension for any indefinite period of time. 9. Having considered the materials above, the inevitable conclusion is that the Notification dated 14.08.2013 placing the petitioner under suspension requires to be interfered with, which is accordingly done. 10. In view of the above, this writ petition stands allowed by setting aside the Notification dated 14.08.2013 (Annexure-1) with further direction to the State respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner to his substantive rank. This shall be done within a period of 2(two) weeks from today. No costs.