JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. P Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. SS Roy, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 16.12.1982 and he was confirmed in service on 22.7.1998. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant and was functioning as Cashier in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, Assam. 3. On 14.8.2014 (Annexure-A), a show cause notice on certain allegation was served upon the petitioner whereby he was required to give a reply within 7 days from the date of the receipt of the letter. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 17.8.2014 (Annexure-B). However, the Deputy Commissioner of Barpeta not being satisfied with the reply of the petitioner issued the suspension order dated 3.11.2014 (Annexure-C) suspending the petitioner in terms of the provision provided under Rule-6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rule, 1964. 4. The petitioner against the suspension order filed his representation before the said authority but the authority concerned proceeded to appoint an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer vide letter dated 25.11.2014 (Annexure-E). Pursuant to the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer, a series of hearing was conducted whereby the petitioner was summoned to appear before the Enquiry Officer and the last appearance being conveyed on 1.4.2015 (Annexure-H). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the last hearing was conducted on 7.4.2015 but however, the authorities without taking any further decision have not taken any action and in the meantime, the petitioner is still in suspension pursuant to the suspension order passed on 3.11.2014. He further submits that the petitioner even filed an appeal under Rule 13 of The Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 on 15.11.2016. But however, the same has neither been considered nor disposed of by the respondent authorities concerned and therefore the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Appearing for the State respondents, Mr. SS Roy, learned Government Advocate submits that he is yet to receive instructions in the matter and therefore some more time may be granted. 6. But however, the same has neither been considered nor disposed of by the respondent authorities concerned and therefore the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Appearing for the State respondents, Mr. SS Roy, learned Government Advocate submits that he is yet to receive instructions in the matter and therefore some more time may be granted. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that it is a settled law that suspension cannot be resorted to by the disciplinary authority indefinitely without any justifiable cause in much as the same not only cause undue hardship to the suspended officer but also leads to wastage of human resource as well as material resources of the organization who has to continue paying the subsistence allowance without any profitable return from the officer concerned. 7. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Md. Sahabuddin –vs- State of Assam & Ors reported in 1990 (1) GLR 276 whereby the Division Bench of this Court had held that prolonged suspension without any justifiable reason was not permissible and therefore had directed the re-instatement of the petitioner therein but however, leaving it open to the respondent authorities to pursue the disciplinary proceeding as per law. 8. Similarly, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Bharat Baruah –vs- State of Assam & Ors reported in 2009 4 GLR 636 whereby a similar direction was issued to the respondent authorities to re-instate the suspended petitioner into service without debarring them from proceeding and completing the departmental proceedings. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 2.1.4 of The Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The said provision may be reproduced below for ready reference: “Although suspension is not a punishment by itself, it cannot be denied at the same time that in such cases the officers placed under suspension suffer a lot. Apart from this, suspension of a Government Servant is a liability on the part of the Government. The said provision may be reproduced below for ready reference: “Although suspension is not a punishment by itself, it cannot be denied at the same time that in such cases the officers placed under suspension suffer a lot. Apart from this, suspension of a Government Servant is a liability on the part of the Government. The idea behind planning an officer under suspension is not to inflict punishment, which can be done only when the charges are proved, but to safeguard against further loss to Government, manipulation of records, intimidation of witnesses or embarrassment to Government in the public eye, as in the case, wherein moral turpitude is involved. In all cases of suspension the elementary justice demands that the period of suspension the elementary justice demands that the period of suspension should be reduced to the barest minimum. It is therefore, necessary to conclude proceedings drawn up as quickly as possible and in any case if it is not possible to do so due to reasons beyond control, the persons proceeded against may be allowed to resume their duties, where possible in places away from their former place of duty, vacating the suspension order so as to save Government expenditure in the event of his acquittal.” 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the decisions rendered by this Court in the above two cases which in fact relates to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of K Sukinder Reddy –vs- State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. reported in (1992) 6 SCC 257 and also in view of the rules framed by the State Government in this regard, the prolonged suspension of the petitioner cannot be justified. Moreover, hearing in the disciplinary proceeding had already been concluded after the last hearing which was on 7.4.2015. In that view of the matter, he prays that the respondent authorities be directed to re-instate the petitioner pending finalization of the departmental proceeding. 11. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. Providing further opportunities to the learned Government Advocate to obtain instructions may not result in persuading this Court to take a different view than what has been laid down in the aforesaid decisions. 11. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. Providing further opportunities to the learned Government Advocate to obtain instructions may not result in persuading this Court to take a different view than what has been laid down in the aforesaid decisions. As noticed, the petitioner has been in suspension since 3.11.2014 and it is well over 2½ years now that the respondent authorities have been unable to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. In such circumstances, I find no justification for the prolonged suspension of the petitioner. Even if the disciplinary authority ultimately decides against the petitioner, there is no reason as to why the petitioner should be kept under suspension awaiting such final decision. Upon considering the materials available on record as well as the decisions rendered by this Court and the Apex Court in similar context, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly, respondent No.3 to re-instate the petitioner back into service within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 12. It is also hereby observed that such re-instatement of the petitioner will not preclude the disciplinary authority from finalizing and concluding the disciplinary proceeding against the writ petitioner, the entitlement of the petitioner as regards the back wages will be governed by the ultimate decision of the disciplinary authority. The impugned order of suspension dated 3.11.2014 is hereby set aside. 13. It is also made clear that disciplinary authority shall conduct and conclude the disciplinary proceeding against the writ petitioner strictly as per law and the established rules applicable. 14. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost.