JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In this writ application, the petitioner has interalia prayed for quashing the order dated 02.01.2017 issued by respondent no.4 pertaining to suspension of the petitioner from services and for direction for keeping the order dated 02.01.2017 in abeyance during the pendency of the writ petition. 2. The brief facts as averred in the writ application is that the petitioner was appointed on the Assistant Director at the Dairy Development Directorate at Ranchi, Jharkhand along with additional charges of District Dairy Development Officer, Lohardaga and District Dairy Development Officer, Latehar vide order dated 30.06.2014 apart from the above petitioner was also holding the post of Nodal Officer Integrated Dairy Development Program, Dhanbad. One Ashok Kumar Sinha was holding the post of District Dairy Development Officer, Lohardaga prior to the appointment of the petitioner. An FIR was lodged at Lohardaga Police Station on 22.06.2016 being P.S. Case No.92 of 2016 corresponding to G.R. Case No.372 of 2016 against the petitioner and Ashok Kumar Sinha by Chhanda Bhattacharjee wherein it was alleged that Ashok Kumar Sinha has been impersonating as the petitioner and had been not only working in the capacity of District Dairy Development Officer, i.e., the post of the petitioner, but was also identifying himself to others as the District Dairy Development Officer at the various departmental meetings as evident from Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It has further been alleged that there was some kind of collusion between the petitioner and Ashok Kumar Sinha. In pursuance to the said FIR, the petitioner was enlarged on Anticipatory bail vide order dated 04.10.2016 by the learned Sessions Judge. A show cause notice dated 08.07.2016 was issued to the petitioner on the basis of a letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga dated 22.06.2016 and the petitioner has filed his show cause reply denying the allegations made therein. The petitioner was also requested to discharge the additional charge of District Dairy Development Officer, Lohardaga and also for transfer of Ashok Kumar Sinha to some other place. It has further been stated that the petitioner never delegated any of his duties as the District Dairy Development Officer, Lohardaga to Ashok Kumar Sinha, nor did he ask him to preside over the meetings or identify himself as the District Dairy Development Officer to other government officials. It has further been stated that the petitioner never delegated any of his duties as the District Dairy Development Officer, Lohardaga to Ashok Kumar Sinha, nor did he ask him to preside over the meetings or identify himself as the District Dairy Development Officer to other government officials. By way of non-speaking order dated 02.01.2017, the petitioner has been suspended from services vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of suspension, the petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suspension order is extremely atrocious and severe in nature in view of the fact that the petitioner never indulged in any illegal or immoral activity and the petitioner has a spotless career and by the impugned order of suspension, the petitioner has been subjected to serious civil consequences. Learned senior counsel further submits that the impugned order of suspension has not passed by the competent authorities since the petitioner is a Class-II gazetted employee which can be suspended only by the authority of the State Government being the appointing authority but the impugned order which has been passed by the respondent vide dated 02.01.2017. Who is not competent to pass such order. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner during course of hearing referred to supplementary affidavit dated 31.01.2017 wherein it has been submitted that the final report dated 31.12.2016 has been submitted by the investigating officer in connection with P.S. Case No.92/16 lodged under Section 170/417/419 of the Indian Penal Code wherein involvement of the accused was not found during the investigation as per Annexure-S-I. 4. Controverting the averment made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.2 to 4. In the counter-affidavit, certain factual aspects have been mentioned in paragraph-7 which are stated here-in-below:- (a) The District inspection was carried by the departmental head in Lohardaga district on 17.06.2016 following which report was sent by Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga dated 22.06.2016 as per Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit, certain factual aspects have been mentioned in paragraph-7 which are stated here-in-below:- (a) The District inspection was carried by the departmental head in Lohardaga district on 17.06.2016 following which report was sent by Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga dated 22.06.2016 as per Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. (b) The serious allegations were levelled by Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga against the petitioner and one Ashok Kumar Sinha, who was posted as Dairy Technical Officer, Lohardaga through the letter being:- (i) The petitioner who was in additional charge as District Dairy Development Officer, Lohardaga was not officiating his duties and Ashok Kumar Sinha, (Dairy Technical Officer, Lohardaga) had been working in the capacity of District Dairy Development Officer, Lohardaga. (ii) Ashok Kumar Sinha, (Dairy Technical Officer, Lohardaga) had been attending all district level meetings as District Dairy Development Officer, Lohardaga and the petitioner never attended these meetings in officer capacity. (iii) It was also suggested that these two government servants, the petitioner Ajit Kumar and Ashok Kumar Sinha could have some sort of collusive arrangement. (iv) It was also reported that FIR against the two had been lodged in Lohardaga P.S. being case no.92/2016. (v) It was also recommended that departmental proceeding be initiated against the two delinquent employees. (c) The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga was requested vide departmental letter dated 12.07.2016 to provide prapatra “K” along with relevant/supporting documents as per Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. (d) The Deputy Development Commissioner, Lohardaga vide letter dated 25.07.2016 sent the following documents:- (i) Prapatra “K” against Ashok Kumar Sinha, Dairy Technical Officer, Lohardaga. (ii) Prapatra “K” against the petitioner, Ajit Kumar (District Dairy Development Officer, Lohardaga). (iii) Copy of letter dated 22.06.2016, containing information regarding FIR lodged against the two government servants. (iv) show cause received from Ashok Kumar Sinha, Dairy Technical Officer, Lohardaga. (v) Letter dated 22.06.2016 of Deputy Development Officer, Lohardaga, letter dated 22.06.2016 Additional District Magistrate, Lohardaga, letter dated 26.06.2016 of Special Works Officer (Confidential Branch), at the office of Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, Report of Stenographer, one Lal Balkishore Nath Sahdeo dated 21.06.2016, report of Stenographer, one Ajay Kumar Madhur dated 21.06.2016 as per Annexure-C series to the counter-affidavit. (e) The show cause notice was served to the petitioner vide departmental letter dated 08.07.2016 and reply of the show cause was received from the petitioner vide letter dated 20.07.2016 as per Annexure-D series to the counter-affidavit. (e) The show cause notice was served to the petitioner vide departmental letter dated 08.07.2016 and reply of the show cause was received from the petitioner vide letter dated 20.07.2016 as per Annexure-D series to the counter-affidavit. (f) The situation and documents available against the petitioner sought for suspension and initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner. (g) The approval from the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Jharkhand was granted on 29.12.2016 for suspending and starting departmental enquiry against the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was suspended vide departmental order dated 02.01.2017. (h) It has further been submitted that the departmental proceeding against the petitioner by the resolution dated 03.01.2017 initiated after approval as evident from Annexure-E to the counter-affidavit. 5. Mr. Lalan Kr. Singh, learned J.C to G.P. I for the respondent-State has assiduously defended the action of the respondent in putting the petitioner under suspension. 6. After hearing learned counsels for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the records it would reveal that the only question that falls for adjudication is to test correctness and tenability of the order of the suspension dated 02.01.2017 the basis of which is the lodging of FIR and in the said criminal case final report has been submitted by the investigating officer clearly absolving the petitioner from the commission of irregularities. (ii) In the case in hand, the order of suspension which has been passed by the respondents in contemplation of initiation of departmental proceeding. It is trite law that the suspension in contemplation of departmental proceeding is not a punishment but it visits the employee with serious civil consequences and loss of reputation and prestige. Therefore, suspension order should not be passed in a very mechanical casual manner or without due application of mind. (iii) Usually where the charges are show severe that may entail infliction of major punishment that in eventuality passing of the order of suspension may be justified. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Therefore, suspension order should not be passed in a very mechanical casual manner or without due application of mind. (iii) Usually where the charges are show severe that may entail infliction of major punishment that in eventuality passing of the order of suspension may be justified. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary And Another as reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 has been pleased to hold that the suspension should not be extended beyond three months if within this period of memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee, if the memorandum of charge/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed by the order of suspension as has been depicted in the counter affidavit. The order of suspension in pursuance to the departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner therefore, it would be within the exclusive domain of the Government to pass orders as to whether the order of suspension is to continue and or the order of revocation of suspension is to be passed. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also deprecated the practice of protracted periods of suspension and repeated renewal thereof since a suspended employee has suffered ignominy of insinuations, scorn of society and derision of his department even before his charge. In the meantime, more than six months has elapsed, it would be in the fitness of thing to direct respondents to pass appropriate order regarding continuance or revocation of suspension pending departmental proceeding in the interest of justice. 7. Viewed thus, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to pass appropriate orders regarding continuance of suspension order or revocation of suspension order as per Annexure-10 expeditiously preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order/communication of order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.