JUDGMENT : A.K. Goswami, J. Heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned Standing counsel, Excise Department, appearing for the appellant/respondent. Also heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 27.07.2017, passed by the learned Single Judge, in WP(C) 3676/2018, allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order dated 07.07.2017, passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Excise Department, whereby the writ petitioner was placed under suspension. 3. At the relevant point of time, when the writ petitioner was placed under suspension, he was serving as i/c, Joint Commissioner of Excise, Assam. The Commissioner of Excise, Assam, by a letter dated 13.05.2015, had directed the Superintendent of Excise, Kamrup (Metro), to cause an enquiry into alleged irregularities regarding non-payment of Value Added Tax (VAT) and excise duty by BG Bonded Warehouse (for short, “Bonded Warehouse”), Guwahati. Later on, the writ petitioner was requested to take over documents relating to excise duty of the said Bonded Warehouse and to take physical stock of goods stored therein. Subsequent thereto, the Inspector of Excise, Excise Intelligence Bureau (EIB), seized the documents of the Bonded Warehouse on 14.05.2015 and 15.05.2015. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Excise, by his order dated 17.07.2015, constituted a Special Investigating Team (SIT) with four officers, including the writ petitioner, to look into the allegations regarding evasion of excise duty by Bonded Warehouse and to submit a report. The SIT submitted a report dated 19.09.2015 wherein it was recorded that the total amount of excise duty evasion is Rs. 19,85,77,221.60. In its report dated 19.09.2015, the SIT made the following recommendations : “Recommendation: 1. The licensee was criminally culpable as she forged the signature and seal of the Excise officials of Kokrajhar, Treasury Officer, Kokrajhar and the SBI, Kokrajhar and thereby defalcated huge sum of Government revenue. Therefore the case may be immediately handed over to the CID or Assam Police for necessary action against her under the law. This is also required since she was not co-operating with the investigation and therefore her custodial interrogation is required to find out the involvement of any other person. 2. The Bonded warehouse and wholesale licence owned by her may be immediately cancelled after following due procedure under the law. 3. This is also required since she was not co-operating with the investigation and therefore her custodial interrogation is required to find out the involvement of any other person. 2. The Bonded warehouse and wholesale licence owned by her may be immediately cancelled after following due procedure under the law. 3. Superintendent of Excise, Kamrup, may be requested to initiate recovery proceeding under Sec. 35 of the Assam Excuse Act, 1910 to recover the defalcated Excise revenue. 4. The bond and security executed by the licensee at the time of obtaining licence may be invoked and all her property as per executed bond may be attached. 5. Although the connivance of the consecutive Officer-in-charges could not be established due to lack of evidence, their negligence and dereliction of duty is prima facie responsible for such a huge revenue defalcation. Considering the seniority and experience they were of, they should have anticipated the scam since most of the retailers against whom issues were made were “ON” licensees and huge quantities were shown to be issued against them which was unlikely by any standard of retail permits in the entire State.” 4. It is stated in the writ petition that the Government had accepted the report and had directed the Commissioner of Excise, Assam, to lodge an FIR with the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) as per recommendation No. 1 of the report of the SIT. Accordingly, an Ejahar was lodged with the CID, which was registered and numbered as CID Police Station Case No. 54/2015 under Section 120B/468/471/409 IPC read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “PC Act”). 5. In the very same case, the writ petitioner was arrested on 05.07.2017. By an order dated 21.09.2017, the writ petitioner was granted bail by this court in Bail Application No. 1322/2017. After placing the writ petitioner under suspension by the order dated 07.07.2018, a Show-cause Notice dated 20.09.2017, under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (for short “Rules”), read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India was served upon the writ petitioner on the following charge : “Charge No. 1: That while you were holding the post of Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Assam, you were arrested on 05.07.2017 in connection with CID P.S. Case No. 54/2015 U/S 120B/468/471/409 IPC added Sec 13(2) of P.C. Act. 1988 and you are in police remand for a period of 10 (ten) days w.e.f. 05.07.2017. Such conduct on your part as a responsible Government Servant is unbecoming of an officer of your status.” 6. The writ petitioner submitted a written statement to the said Show-cause notice on 17.11.2017. It is averred that the Show-cause notice was served upon the writ petitioner on 03.11.2017. Prior to that, the writ petitioner had submitted a representation dated 16.10.2017 for revocation of suspension. 7. In CID Police Station Case No. 54/2015, a charge-sheet was submitted on 17.11.2017. With regard to the writ petitioner, it was noted as under : “*** *** *** Again, in case of arrested accd. Pranjal Bora who conducted an enquiry as SIT head regarding irregularities of the M/s B.G. Bonded Warehouse reflected criminal charge in his report regarding evasion of Excise duty only against the licensee of the Bonded Warehouse and shown negligence in duty of the O/C posted during 2012 to May, 2015 at B.G. Bonded Warehouse. Whereas accd. Pranjal Bora did not mention in his SIT report intentionally about the involvement of the O/C namely Bijoy Kr. Das, Ajoy Kr. Bayan, Amarendra Nath in the case who actually violated some important rules, manual of the Excise Deptt. which indicates clearly about their criminal conspiracy, breach of trust, criminal misconduct etc. Accd. Pranjal Bora did not mention about involvement of Rajesh Kr. Jalan, the mastermind of the case whose name is included in the permit register of IMFL and BEER as proprietor that was maintained by the office of the C.E., Assam, Dispur. Also he did not mention about the violation of Rule-6 of the Assam Bonded Warehouse Rules, 1965 in case of the renewal of license by the then Commissioner of Excise and other Rules vis. Rule-7 & 17 of the Assam Bonded Warehouse Rules, 1965/Rule-99 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945/Rule-29, 113 & 118 of the N.E. Region Excise Manual. As a result of which the permits to the B.G. Bonded Warehouse were issued without renewal of license and also establishment were posted illegally. Besides, accd. Pranjal Bora did not carry out the order of the C.E., Assam, vide No. CEX-1/2012/PRSL/37 dtd. As a result of which the permits to the B.G. Bonded Warehouse were issued without renewal of license and also establishment were posted illegally. Besides, accd. Pranjal Bora did not carry out the order of the C.E., Assam, vide No. CEX-1/2012/PRSL/37 dtd. 1/6/2012 wherein his duty was to perform (i) Inspection of Bonded Warehouse/Distilleries, (ii) Issue of permits (iii) Audit matters (revenue & receipt) (iv) Renewal of license and (v) Reconciliation of Revenue figure with treasury etc. Under the above grounds, it clearly indicates about the involvement of accd. Pranjal Bora in the case U/S 120B/409 IPC added Sec. 12(2) P.C. Act, 1988. The CFSL report of seized mobile and laptop belongs to accd. Pranjal Borah is awaited. However, on receipt of the CFSL report, it will be produced before the Hon’ble Court.” 8. The learned Single Judge, relying upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India and Another, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 , allowed the writ petition as no reasoned order had been passed by the State authorities for extension of the suspension order. 9. Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the writ petitioner was suspended under Rule 6(1) of the Rules as a case for criminal offence was under investigation and no time limit for conclusion of the investigation, enquiry or trial having been prescribed, continued suspension cannot be held to be bad in law and that the ratio laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) was not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Mr. Goswami has placed reliance in the judgement of the Apex Court in the cases of Shri D.D. Suri vs. A.K. Barren and Others, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 967 , Director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Others vs. K. Ratnagiri, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 60 , Rt. Rev. 10. Mr. Goswami has placed reliance in the judgement of the Apex Court in the cases of Shri D.D. Suri vs. A.K. Barren and Others, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 967 , Director General and Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Others vs. K. Ratnagiri, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 60 , Rt. Rev. B.P. Sugandhar Bishop in Medak vs. D. Dorothy Dayasheela Ebeneser, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 406 , Secretary to the Government and Another vs. K. Munniappan, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 255, Union of India and Others vs. Udai Narain, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 535 , Punjab National Bank vs. D.M. Amarnath, reported in (2000) 10 SCC 162 and Union of India and Another vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 147. 11. Mr. Goswami has also produced the relevant records. 12. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, by drawing attention of the court to the order of suspension dated 07.07.2017, has submitted that though the order recited that the writ petitioner had been arrested in connection with CID P.S. Case No. 54.2015, a conscious decision was taken to place the writ petitioner under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceeding and not because of pendency of CID P.S. Case No. 54/2015 and, therefore, the ratio of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) is squarely applicable. Drawing attention of the court to the charge framed against the writ petitioner, Mr. Choudhury has submitted that the only charge against the writ petitioner was that he had been arrested in a case. Mr. Choudhury has placed reliance on the judgement in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) as well as in the case of Indian Institute of Technology and Anr. vs. Aloke Kumar Ghosal and Anr. reported in 2017 (5) GLT 132. 13. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record as well as the records produced by Mr. Goswami. 14. Rule 6(1) and 6(2) of the Rules, being relevant for the purpose of this case, are quoted hereinbelow : 6. reported in 2017 (5) GLT 132. 13. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record as well as the records produced by Mr. Goswami. 14. Rule 6(1) and 6(2) of the Rules, being relevant for the purpose of this case, are quoted hereinbelow : 6. Suspension – (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Governor in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension – (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (b) where in the opinion of the authority aforesaid he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State; or (c) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial : Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the Appointing Authority such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was made.” (2) A Government servant who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of such detention, by an order of the Appointing authority and shall remain under suspension until further orders : Provided that where the detention is made on account of any charge not connected with his position as a Government servant or continuance in office is not likely to embarrass the Government or the Government servant in the discharge of his duties or the charge does not involve moral turpitude, the Appointing Authority may vacate the suspension order made or deemed to have been made when he is released on bail or is not otherwise in custody or imprisonment.” 15. A perusal of Rule 6(1) goes to show that a Government servant may be placed under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or where, in the opinion of the authority, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest or the security of the State; or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. 16. 16. Rule 6(2) provides that if a Government servant is detained in custody on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding forty-eight hours, he shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of such detention until further orders. 17. Proviso to Rule 6(2) provides that where the detention is made on account of any charge not connected with his position as a Government servant or his continuance in office is not likely to embarrass the Government or the Government servant in the discharge of his duties or the charge does not involve moral turpitude, the Appointing Authority may vacate the suspension order made or deemed to have been made when he is released on bail or is not otherwise in custody or imprisonment. 18. In the context of the controversy raised, it will be also appropriate to extract the order of suspension. The same reads as follows : “GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM EXCISE DEPARTMENT ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR OF ASSAM NOTIFICATION No. EX.30/2014/20 Dated Dispur the 7th July, 2017. Whereas it has been reported by Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Assam, Ulubari, Guwahati, Vide Memo. No. CID Cell-IV/CID P.S./C-54/15/2017/1912, dtd. 06.07.2017 that Shri Pranjal Borah, Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Assam has been arrested on 05.07.2017 in connection with CID P.S. Case No. 54/2015 U/S 120B/468/471/409 IPC added Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988; and Whereas Shri Pranjal Borah, Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Assam is in police remand for a period of 10 (ten) days w.e.f. 05.07.2017; and Therefore, in pursuance of Rule 6(1) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, Shri Pranjal Borah, Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Assam, is hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect pending drawal of Departmental proceeding against him. Sd/- (R. Prasad, IAS) Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Excise Department” 19. From a reading of the order of suspension, it is apparent that the recital that the writ petitioner was in police remand for a period of ten days with effect from 05.07.2017 is not correct inasmuch as the order of suspension itself was issued on 07.07.017, i.e., two days after his arrest. A perusal of the order of suspension dated 07.07.2017 goes to show that it was not a case of “deemed suspension” but the officer was placed under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceeding. A perusal of the order of suspension dated 07.07.2017 goes to show that it was not a case of “deemed suspension” but the officer was placed under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceeding. A plain reading of the order of suspension further reveals that it is a case of exercise of power of suspension under Rule 6.1.(a) and not because of exercise of power under Rule 6.1.(c). 20. In Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), it is laid down by the Supreme Court that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee. It is also made clear that if the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of suspension. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the ratio of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) is squarely applicable in a case where suspension has been resorted to pending departmental proceeding. 21. In Indian Institute of Technology (supra), the reviewing authority having not reviewed an order of suspension before expiry of ninety days in terms of the relevant rules, following the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), it was held that non-compliance thereof would vitiate the order of suspension. 22. The decision rendered in Shri D.D. Suri (supra) was in the context of placing an officer under suspension against whom an investigation relating to criminal charges was pending. The relevant rule, namely, Rule 7.3. of All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 provides placing of an officer under suspension, against whom an investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending at the discretion of the Government, until termination of all proceedings relating to that charge, if the charge is connected with his position as a Government servant, or is likely to embarrass the Government or the Government servant in the discharge of his duties or the charge involves moral turpitude. 23. In K. Ratnagiri (supra), Rule 13(1) of the A.P. Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1963, which was under consideration, empowered the authority to keep an officer or employee under suspension pending investigation or inquiry into the criminal offence, where such suspension is necessary in the public interest. 23. In K. Ratnagiri (supra), Rule 13(1) of the A.P. Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1963, which was under consideration, empowered the authority to keep an officer or employee under suspension pending investigation or inquiry into the criminal offence, where such suspension is necessary in the public interest. Udai Narain (supra) was also a case where suspension was effected on the ground that the employee had been arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation on the allegation of accepting bribe and the case was under investigation. In D.M. Amarnath (supra), the Supreme Court had observed that law did not require that the suspension order must on its face disclose that any disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or were pending or that any criminal offence was under investigation, inquiry or trial and that it would be sufficient if the competent authority recorded in its proceeding that conditions enumerated in the relevant regulation [in the said case Regulation 12.1 of the Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations, 1977] were in existence. In the instant case, the order of suspension has demonstrated the purpose for which the officer was placed under suspension, namely, pending drawal of departmental proceeding. 24. K. Munniappan (supra) was a case where suspension was ordered in contemplation of an inquiry into a grave criminal offence and, in the context thereof, the Supreme Court had observed that if the officer was allowed to retire, there would be no occasion to take effective steps to satisfactorily tackle the enormity of the crime and that a threadbare investigation was required to be undertaken by the Investigating Officer for which there were some time gap. In Rt. Rev. B.P. Sugandhar Bishop (supra), the Supreme Court, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, had set aside the direction of the High Court for restoration of the employee to the post of Principal and had directed the employer to go on paying full salary and allowances to the employee till the inquiry, which was directed to be completed within a period of three months, was over. 25. In the instant case, though the order of suspension is dated 07.07.2017, the stand of the writ petitioner was that the same was served on him on 17.11.2017, which was beyond the period of ninety days. 25. In the instant case, though the order of suspension is dated 07.07.2017, the stand of the writ petitioner was that the same was served on him on 17.11.2017, which was beyond the period of ninety days. Even if it is assumed that the suspension order was served within a period of ninety days from the date of suspension, in terms of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), no reasoned order was passed for extension of the suspension. It is relevant to note that no action has been taken against the other members of the SIT. Records also do not reveal that any conscious decision had been taken by the appropriate authority for continued suspension of the writ petitioner in terms of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). It is also to be noted that the records produced by Mr. Goswami are not paginated properly as, after page No.18, page starts from page No. 9 onwards. 26. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, we leave it open to the appellant to post the writ petitioner in any other post of equal rank and status consequent upon his re-instatement.