JUDGMENT Soumen Sen, J. - The appeal is arising out of an order dated 15th February, 2019 in a writ application filed by the appellant against the continuation of the suspension order handed down to him in view of pendency of a criminal case presently being tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Asansol. 2. While the appellant was in judicial custody, he was placed under suspension with 50 per cent wages. He made a grievance that the order of suspension was passed pursuant to the order dated 22nd January, 2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Asansol and the order of the competent authority, as mentioned in the order of suspension, did not speak anything about the suspension from service. In the writ proceeding, he has also raised grievance about the retention of subsistence allowance being paid to him during the period of suspension without enhancing it upto 75 per cent of the wages after three months from the date of suspension. 3. The writ petition was heard without affidavits. The learned Single Judge considering the fact that clause 28.9 of the Certified Standing Orders gives a power to the employer to suspend an employee during pendency of all criminal cases. In the instant case, the appellant is facing a trial for a grave offence involving moral turpitude, the authority concerned was justified in keeping the appellant under suspension. 4. This finding of the learned Trial Judge is challenged before us by Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, on the strength of three decisions placed before us, namely, Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its secretary & Anr., 2015 7 SCC 291 , State of Tamil Nadu vs. Promod Kumar IPS, 2018 17 SCC 677 and an unreported decision of this Court delivered on 30th August, 2019 in FMA No.3541 of 2015 (Allahabad Bank vs. Sandipta Gangopadhyay). 5. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee that all the three decisions taking into consideration the purpose and ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India recognised that an employee cannot be kept under suspension continuously during the length of the criminal trial as it would bear a stigma on his character. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Banerjee that all the three decisions taking into consideration the purpose and ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India recognised that an employee cannot be kept under suspension continuously during the length of the criminal trial as it would bear a stigma on his character. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) has deprecated the practice of protracted periods of suspension either in contemplation of the disciplinary proceeding or during the pendency of the criminal proceeding as the suspended person in such cases suffers the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of society and the derision of his department. He is, in fact, vexed before his fate is decided. It is submitted that the writ petitioner was not charged with commission of any misconduct in course of his employment and the present charge levelled against him is outside the scope of his employment. It is an allegation which is yet to be proved at the trial. It is further submitted that irrespective of the fact that the appellant has been charged with murder and a charge sheet has been filed, the trial has not yet commenced and the appellant is no way responsible for it. Mr. Banerjee has also submitted that Rule 28.9 of the Certified Standing Orders in respect of Eastern Coalfields Limited although permits the Management to suspend the workman prosecuted for murder until disposal of the trial, but in the instant case the order of suspension has been passed mechanically without giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner or disclosing the reasons for which his service has been suspended. 6. Per contra, Mr. Bijoy Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the coal company has submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 13th August, 2014 and was in custody till 27th January, 2015. Thereafter a charge sheet has been filed against the writ petitioner and the charges are under Sections 326/307/302/120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant has been charged with grave criminal offence involving murder, grievous hurt and criminal conspiracy. The disciplinary authority has rightly invoked clause 28.9 of the Certified Standing Orders and placed him under suspension with 50 per cent of wages till his conviction or acquittal. Mr. The appellant has been charged with grave criminal offence involving murder, grievous hurt and criminal conspiracy. The disciplinary authority has rightly invoked clause 28.9 of the Certified Standing Orders and placed him under suspension with 50 per cent of wages till his conviction or acquittal. Mr. Kumar has also drawn our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, 2013 16 SCC 147 and submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering several cases held that long period of suspension does not make the order of suspension invalid. Mr. Kumar thus supports the judgment and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. For convenience, clause 28.9 of the Certified Standing Orders in respect of Eastern Coalfields Limited is set out hereinbelow:- "28.9.Notwithstanding the provisions contained in these Standing Order, as above, the management reserves right to suspend a workman being prosecuted in a court of law for any grave criminal offence involving moral turpitude or murder until disposal of the trial. In such cases the workman concerned shall be entitled to 50% of wages as subsistence allowance. In case the above workman is finally acquitted, he would be paid full wages for the period of suspension." 8. In Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court spurred to extrapolate the quintessence of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to moderate suspension order in case of departmental/disciplinary enquiry also on the reasoning:- "It seems to us that if Parliament considered it necessary that a person be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be continued after the expiry of the similar period especially when a memorandum of charges/charge-sheet has not been served on the suspended person. It is true that the proviso to section 167(2) CrPC postulates personal freedom, but respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also be placed on the same pedestal. "21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. " 9. "21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. " 9. In Promod Kumar IPS (supra) suspension order was passed with effect from 2nd April, 2012 against the Inspector General of Police which was periodically extended after expiry of 180 days. Promod Kumar was alleged to have violated his official position by extorting money from a director of a firm and delayed repayment to depositors of the firm. The said suspension order was continued for more than six years. The Apex Court while holding that the State Government undoubtedly has power to keep the Inspector General under suspension pending criminal trial, but protracted suspension was deprecated. In the said case the Apex Court noticed that while granting bail to Promod Kumar, liberty was granted to the investigating agency to approach Court in case he tampered with evidence. It was revealed that no complaint was made in that regard and in such circumstances, the Hon'ble Court held that continued suspension of Promod Kumar was no longer required since his reinstatement would not be threat to a fair trial. 10. In Allahabad Bank vs. Sandipta Gangopadhyay (supra) in view of difference of opinion of the two Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench while deciding the appeal, the matter was referred to Justice Sahidullah Munshi by an order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice dated 10th December, 2018. The issues came up for consideration before the learned Third Judge are as follows: "(1) Whether a due suspension of an employee even on the allegation of bribery can be prolonged without any departmental proceeding and such suspended employee being involved in economic crime with moral turpitude cannot be transferred to any other branch even with lesser responsibility. (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get an order of reinstatement having regard to his enlargement of bail." The learned Judge in disposing of the aforesaid issues observed:- "... Simply because the matter is pending before the criminal Court it is no excuse for the authority to sit tight and not to initiate departmental proceeding. (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get an order of reinstatement having regard to his enlargement of bail." The learned Judge in disposing of the aforesaid issues observed:- "... Simply because the matter is pending before the criminal Court it is no excuse for the authority to sit tight and not to initiate departmental proceeding. There is no law today to create a bar for departmental proceeding against the employee concerned on the ground that a criminal proceeding is pending against him and only after acquittal from the criminal trial he may be reinstated, does not justify prolonged suspension. Therefore, the authority, in my view has not acted bona fide in complying with the procedures prescribed under their own regulation. When the regulation becomes a complete Code the authority ought to have moved independent of the criminal prosecution and should have investigated departmentally to find out the wrong with the said employee. ... Suspension is an executive action whereby a government servant is kept out of duty temporarily pending final decision being taken against him for acts of indiscipline or like way. Provision for suspension has been made in service rules as its own object. It is beneficial both for the employee and the employer. Suspension pending departmental enquiry is a safeguard against the government servant interfering with and hampering the preliminary investigation and tampering with material evidence either oral and documentary. In case of involvement in criminal proceedings, the charges usually involved moral turpitude. Suspension is ordered for smooth continuity of the departmental proceeding without being influenced in any way at the instance of delinquent. An order of suspension of a government servant is not by way of punishment. The object of putting under suspension is to put the employee temporarily out from the office for the purpose of ongoing departmental proceeding. Therefore, when departmental proceeding is not contemplated at all, this cannot be the only object to place the employee under suspension and for him to be satisfied with a limited payment of his salary. This prolonged suspension is opposed to the due process of law in our constitution. Because it cannot be the public policy to abridge a person's right ordinarily to continue with the job for which he has been engaged. If he is alleged to have committed any wrong or guilt the same itself cannot be construed a punishment. This prolonged suspension is opposed to the due process of law in our constitution. Because it cannot be the public policy to abridge a person's right ordinarily to continue with the job for which he has been engaged. If he is alleged to have committed any wrong or guilt the same itself cannot be construed a punishment. Any allegation labelled against an employee is to be enquired into by the procedure established by law or prescribed under the rules and regulations. Rules and regulations where are sufficient for a departmental inquiry the authority cannot bypass the same and cause the sufferance of the employee to suffer suspension for a prolonged period without being communicated the reasons for such prolonged suspension. Our constitution guarantees life or liberty of a person, however, guilty he may be, without complying with the procedural requirement of due process, is invalid. Therefore, in my view, prolonged suspension opposes due process focused in the Constitutional mandates. "Due Process" is the process of law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon enquiry, and renders judgment only after trial." 11. Although the facts of the cases of the three judgments relied upon by the appellant may not be absolutely identical to the facts in issue but the law is very clear on this point that continued and prolonged suspension in a given fact situation could cause injustice to the person concerned as he would require to bear a scar during the period of suspension for an act which is yet to be proved and not connected or related to his employment. 12. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Single Judge has given reasons in support of the order of suspension passed by the authority concerned although such reasons could not be spelt out from the order of suspension. The order of suspension has to be considered on the basis disclosed in the order and it was not open to the Court to supply reasons for it. It is well settled that validity of an administrative order must be judged by the reasons stated while making the order and supplementary reasons by way of oral argument or in the shape of an affidavit cannot be permitted [see Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. It is well settled that validity of an administrative order must be judged by the reasons stated while making the order and supplementary reasons by way of oral argument or in the shape of an affidavit cannot be permitted [see Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., 1978 1 SCC 405 ; T.P. Senkumar vs. Union of India, 2017 6 SCC 801 ]. The reasons supplied by the Court were not present in the mind of the authorities in passing the order of suspension. 13. There cannot be any doubt that the appellant has been charged with serious criminal offence involving murder. He is an accused in a murder trial. We have been informed that the trial has not commenced, although a charge sheet has been filed in the meantime. The law is very clear on this point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra) has held that even if a criminal trial or enquiry taking a long time, it is ordinarily not open to court to interfere with suspension order as it is within the exclusive domain of the competent authority who can always review its suspension order and revoke it if it is satisfied that criminal case pending would only be concluded after an unusual delay for no fault of the employee concerned. The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as vindictive misuse of power. The authority should take into account all the available material as to whether in a given case, it is advisable to allow the delinquent to continue to perform his duties in the office or his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the inquiry. It should not be actuated by mala fide, arbitrariness or for ulterior purpose. Effect on public interest due to the employee's continuation in office is also a relevant and determining factor. The facts of each case have to be taken into consideration as no formula of universal application can be laid down in this regard. 14. The learned Trial Judge in dismissing the writ petition has made observations with regard to the nature and gravity of the offence for which criminal proceedings are pending. Admittedly, the offence for which the appellant has been charged was unconnected with his employment and is not arising out of his employment. 14. The learned Trial Judge in dismissing the writ petition has made observations with regard to the nature and gravity of the offence for which criminal proceedings are pending. Admittedly, the offence for which the appellant has been charged was unconnected with his employment and is not arising out of his employment. The order of suspension appears to have been mechanically passed. The order of suspension dated 23rd June, 2015 was passed based on an order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Asansol on 22nd January, 2015 by which prayer for bail of all the three accused, which includes the appellant, were allowed. Although, there cannot be any doubt that in terms of clause 28.9 of the Certified Standing Orders, the management reserves the right to suspend a workman for any grave criminal offence involving murder until disposal of the trial, but it does not preclude the management from considering if there are circumstances for not exercising such power as the clause 28.3 does not say in absolute terms that suspension would follow automatically if an employee is charged with any grave criminal offence like murder which is no way related to his employment in the establishment. 15. We feel that having regard to the facts that the criminal case is pending for almost four years, now the reviewing authority shall revisit the issue of suspension keeping in mind the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (supra) and the other decisions considered above and pass an appropriate order. The reviewing authority, should require the appellant to produce necessary documents pertaining to the criminal case including the charge sheet and the order passed by the criminal court so far and till date, may direct the appellant to produce such documents for the purpose of reviewing its order of suspension. 16. We are of the view that it would not be proper for us to substitute our judicial discretion to that of the authority possessing the power to review the order of suspension and accordingly we refrain from making any comment with the discretion to be exercised by the authority concerned upon examination of the documents to be produced by the appellant before the reviewing authority. 17. The reviewing authority shall revisit the issue and pass a fresh reasoned order within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 18. 17. The reviewing authority shall revisit the issue and pass a fresh reasoned order within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 18. The appeal and the connected application stand disposed of by treating the same as on day's list. 19. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.