JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard M.K. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Kerketta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 01.07.2019 whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. 4. Mr. M.K. Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee of Jharkhand Co-operative Service, who was appointed in the Basic Grade of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 29.11.1995. The petitioner was posted as Managing Director of Deoghar-Jamtara Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Deoghar for the period between 01.12.2011 to 11.01.2014. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide Memo No. 1139 dated 01.07.2019. By the order of suspension, the service of the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. The charge sheet was issued to the petitioner after 105 days of placing his service under suspension. The petitioner’s service has been placed under suspension in terms of enquiry report submitted vide letter no. 1380 dated 03.05.2019. The said enquiry report was not served upon the petitioner. The petitioner requested the Secretary of the Department to furnish a copy of the said enquiry report. The same was served upon the petitioner on 03.05.2019. A complaint was made against the petitioner by one Vishal Kumar and one Anamul Haque regarding irregularities being committed in the various Co-operative Banks in the State of Jharkhand including the Deoghar-Jamtara Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Deoghar. An enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Section 34 and 35 of the Jharkhand Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 confers powers upon the Registrar to initiate an enquiry in the affairs of the Cooperative Society on his own or on the application of the majority of the Managing Committee or of not less than 1/3rd of the members. No opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner. 5. Mr. Roy, the learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was suspended on 01.07.2019. He submits that thereafter the enquiry proceeding has not been completed as yet. Mr. No opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner. 5. Mr. Roy, the learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was suspended on 01.07.2019. He submits that thereafter the enquiry proceeding has not been completed as yet. Mr. Roy, the learned counsel submits that in view of resolution, within 105 days the suspension was required to be revoked, however, in the present case, more than 105 days elapsed and the enquiry has not been completed as yet. He submits that the petitioner is still in service. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to face the enquiry but in view of the well settled provision of law that the suspension cannot be allowed to prolong for a long period, he submits that in that view of the matter, the suspension order is required to be revoked by the Court. 6. Mr. Ravi Kerketta, the learned State counsel submits that it is admitted that the enquiry has not been completed as yet. He refers to Rule 9(6) of Jharkhand Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2016 and submits that the authority is having the power to pass appropriate order on the point of suspension if the enquiry is not completed, the authority can extend the suspension period. He submits that the representation is there and the authority can take decision in the light of Rule 9(6)(C). The learned counsel for the State further submits that due to pandemic, the enquiry has not been concluded. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court finds that admittedly the petitioner was suspended on 01.07.2019. It is also an admitted fact that the enquiry has not been completed as yet. In view of the resolution of the Personnel and Administrative Department dated 26.12.2012, Annexure-11 of the writ petition the enquiry needs to be completed within 105 days. The representation is already there and in view of the submission of Mr. Kerketta, the State counsel Rule 9(6)(C) has not been exercised by the authority for extending the suspension order with regard to the petitioner. A reference in this regard may be made in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Promod Kumar, (2018) 17 SCC 677. Paragraph Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment are quoted herein-below: “24. A reference in this regard may be made in the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs. Promod Kumar, (2018) 17 SCC 677. Paragraph Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment are quoted herein-below: “24. The first respondent was placed under deemed suspension under Rule 3(2) of the All India Services Rules for being in custody for a period of more than 48 hours. Periodic reviews were conducted for his continuance under suspension. The recommendations of the Review Committees did not favour his reinstatement due to which he is still under suspension. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent fairly submitted that we can proceed on the basis that the criminal trial is pending. There cannot be any dispute regarding the power or jurisdiction of the State Government for continuing the first respondent under suspension pending criminal trial. There is no doubt that the allegations made against the first respondent are serious in nature. However, the point is whether the continued suspension of the first respondent for a prolonged period is justified. 25. The first respondent has been under suspension for more than six years. While releasing the first respondent on bail, liberty was given to the investigating agency to approach the Court in case he indulged in tampering with the evidence. Admittedly, no complaint is made by CBI in that regard. Even now the appellant has no case that there is any specific instance of any attempt by the first respondent to tamper with evidence. 26. In the minutes of the Review Committee meeting held on 27.6.2016, it was mentioned that the first respondent is capable of exerting pressure and influencing witnesses and there is every likelihood of the first respondent misusing office if he is reinstated as Inspector General of Police. Only on the basis of the minutes of the Review Committee meeting, the Principal Secretary, Home (SC) Department ordered extension of the period of suspension for a further period of 180 days beyond 9.7.2016 vide order dated 6.7.2016. 27. This Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India has frowned upon the practice of protracted suspension and held that suspension must necessarily be for a short duration. 27. This Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India has frowned upon the practice of protracted suspension and held that suspension must necessarily be for a short duration. On the basis of the material on record, we are convinced that no useful purpose would be served by continuing the first respondent under suspension any longer and that his reinstatement would not be a threat to a fair trial. We reiterate the observation of the High Court that the appellant State has the liberty to appoint the first respondent in a non-sensitive post.” 8. In view of the well settled provision of law, it is well settled that the suspension must necessarily be for a short duration. Admittedly, in this case, in view of the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent State, Rule 9(6) (C) has not been invoked for extending the period of suspension or revocation, the ground of pandemic is not acceptable to the Court in view of the fact that the petitioner has been suspended on 01.07.2019 whereas the pandemic in India has come in March, 2020, however, four weeks’ further time is allowed to the respondent State to conclude the departmental proceeding. If the departmental proceeding is not concluded within the aforesaid period, the order of suspension shall automatically be revoked. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant Writ Petition [W.P. (S) No. 41 of 2020] stands disposed of. 10. I.A. if any stands disposed of.