JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. H Bezbaruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C Bhattacharjee, learned Standing counsel, Education, Secondary Department. 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Arabic, Madhukuchi Anchalik Girls High School in the year 1991 and states that, since then, he is discharging his duties to the satisfaction of all concerned. 3. The petitioner was appointed as an examiner for the subject Arabic(E) by a letter dated 25.02.2015 for the HSLC/AHM Examination, 2015 at Rangia Higher Secondary School. By the said letter, the petitioner was also directed to report for training for 15 days to familiarize with the new ICR-cum-OMR technology introduced for the first time in the evaluation process. It is stated that for the purpose of evaluation, the petitioner remained present from 02.04.2015 to 11.04.2015. But on 13.04.2015, the petitioner fell sick and, accordingly, he informed the Scrutinizing Officer over phone about his illness and could not attend evaluation duty on that date. The subsequent dates i.e., 14.04.2015 and 15.04.2015 were closed for evaluation being holidays due to Bohag Bihu. On 16.04.2015, the petitioner submitted an application to the Chief Zonal Officer, informing him of his inability to attend the evaluation duty due to his prolonged illness. Subsequently, when the petitioner reported back for duties on 20.04.2015 for the purpose of evaluation, the petitioner was served with a copy of the order dated 20.04.2015, by which the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect. In the said order of 20.04.2015, it is provided that the petitioner was found to be absent for evaluation duty on 19.04.2015 and that the petitioner was absent for 4(four) days as per the records of the Zonal Officer. Accordingly the absence of the petitioner was treated as gross negligence of duty, therefore, he is placed under suspension with immediate effect. Although, it was stated that he was entitled to draw subsistence allowances as per rules, but the order of suspension does not provide any information as to whether any disciplinary action is contemplated against the petitioner or not. 4. Be that as it may, it is stated that even as on date, the petitioner, is still under suspension and is being paid his subsistence allowances. 5. The matter regarding suspension has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment and order in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union Of India through its. 4. Be that as it may, it is stated that even as on date, the petitioner, is still under suspension and is being paid his subsistence allowances. 5. The matter regarding suspension has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment and order in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union Of India through its. Secretary & Anr., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 . In paragraph 14 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “14. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a Suspension Order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the Memorandum of Charges/Chargesheet is served a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the concerned person to any Department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.” 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is very categorical in providing that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond 3(three) months, if within this period the memorandum of charges is not served on the delinquent, by providing that a reasoned order is to be passed for extension of the suspension, even in the event the memorandum of charges are served. 7. 7. In the aforesaid background, the learned Standing counsel, Education Secondary Department has made a submission that the memorandum of charges against the petitioner was attempted to serve on him, but the petitioner had refused to accept the same. On a pointed query, the learned counsel could not produce any material to indicate that the petitioner had refused such service of memorandum of charges. Apart from a bland submission in the affidavit, no further material is indicated by the respondent authorities as to how and when the petitioner had refused the service of such memorandum of charges. 8. Further even if the acceptance of the memorandum of charges was refused by the petitioner, still at the best, this Court can construe that the same had been served on the petitioner. On such occasion also, as provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent authorities are required to pass a reasoned order for extension of the suspension of the petitioner. 9. Neither the affidavit of the respondents, nor the submission of the learned Standing counsel, indicates that any such reasoned order had been passed by the respondent authorities, by which, the charges of suspension of the petitioner had been extended. 10. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that further continuation of the suspension, in the absence of the memorandum of charge being served and further even it is to be construed that such memorandum of charges has been served, in the absence of such a reasoned order being passed for continuance of the suspension order, the order dated 20.04.2015 is no longer sustainable. 11. In such view of the matter, the order dated 20.04.2015 suspending the petitioner is hereby set aside. It is further provided that setting aside of the order of suspension of the petitioner shall not preclude the respondent authorities to start a proceeding against the petitioner as per law. 12. At this stage, Mr. Bhattacharjee, submits that in the event, a proceeding is started against the petitioner, the petitioner must cooperate with the authorities. 13. It is needless to say that in the event, such a proceeding is initiated, the petitioner shall cooperate with the authorities. 14. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of.