JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. K. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. Assailing the order of suspension dated 19.5.2020 and praying for his reinstatement, the petitioner, who was then posted as Head Assistant in service in the office of the respondent No. 5, has filed this writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statements made in the writ petition and has stated that by the impugned order dated 19.5.2020, the Additional Chief Engineer, PWRD, Barak Valley Zone, Silchar (respondent No. 3) had suspended the petitioner on the ground on negligence of duty, misuse of official power, etc. This was followed by serving a show-cause notice dated 20.5.2020 to which the petitioner had submitted his reply dated 30.6.2020. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 issued a second show-cause notice dated 14.9.2020 on the petitioner. It is further submitted that in their affidavit-in-opposition although the respondents had portray existence of many complaints and adverse orders, the impugned suspension order dated 19.5.2020 is continuing to operate against the petitioner without any re view and without drawing/initiating departmental proceeding. It is also submitted that although the respondents have annexed copy of speaking order dated 14.8.2020, 30.9.2020 and 20.11.2020 as Annexures Z1, Z2 and 23 to the affidavit-in-opposition, the copy of the said three annexures was never communicated to the petitioner at any point of time. In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel has relied on the following cases : (1) Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 , (2) Atfur Rahman v. State of Assam, (2019) 6 Gau LR 460. 4. Per contra, the learned departmental counsel has submitted that in the present occasion, the petitioner has been suspended for the third time. He was first suspended on 31.10.2000, thereafter he was suspended : on 24.7.2013 and the third suspension order was passed on 19.5.2020. It is also submitted that in Annexure-D to the affidavit-in-opposition a chronological list of 27 serious complaints against the petitioner including the three suspension orders and the supporting documents has also been annexed. He was first suspended on 31.10.2000, thereafter he was suspended : on 24.7.2013 and the third suspension order was passed on 19.5.2020. It is also submitted that in Annexure-D to the affidavit-in-opposition a chronological list of 27 serious complaints against the petitioner including the three suspension orders and the supporting documents has also been annexed. It is submitted that on a previous occasion vide office order No. DP-1 dated 30.5.2015, the petitioner was imposed the following penalties as per rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, viz., (1) withholding of one increment without cumulative effect, (2) censure with warning that he will not repeat such behaviour as alleged with the authority in future. Accordingly, it is submitted that in his opinion, the petitioner is incorrigible. It is further submitted that show-cause notice has been issued upon respondent No. 3 on 20.5.2020 (Annexure-3) of the writ petition, which was served to the petitioner on 21.5.2020. However, the petitioner did not submit his reply on time and it was belatedly submitted on 30.6.2020. It is submitted that though the petitioner was allowed time to inspect the documents, but he had not done so, which is contrary to the para 7 of this writ petition. It is also submitted that the statement made in para-8 of the writ petition that the petitioner submitted show-cause reply dated 30.5.2020 is a false statement and the said false statement is evident from show-cause reply dated 30.6.2020 (Annexure-8) to the affidavit-in-reply. It is submitted that the suspension order dated 19.5.2020 is followed by speaking orders dated 14.8.2020, 30.9.2020 and 20.11.2020 as on 29.1.2021, the date of filing the affidavit-in-opposition. It is submitted that in connection with the suspension order dated 19.5.2020, Enquiry Committee was instituted by order No. 5 of 2020-21, dated 21.5.2020 to conduct an enquiry and it is submitted that in view of COVID-19 situation the time for submission of the report by the Enquiry Committee was extended till 30.9.2020 vide notification No. 102 dated 26.5.2020. Thereafter on superannuation of one member, vide notification under Office order No. 22 of 2020-21, dated 30.9.2020, the Enquiry Committee was reconstituted. Thereafter on superannuation of one member, vide notification under Office order No. 22 of 2020-21, dated 30.9.2020, the Enquiry Committee was reconstituted. Taking it into account the issuance of second show cause notice dated 14.9.2020, the time for submission of report by the Committee has been extended till 20.11.2020, By referring to statements made in para 11 of the affidavit-in- opposition, it is submitted that due to COVID-19 pandemic situation, consecutive retirement of 2 Additional Chief Engineers, PWRD, Barak Valley, Silchar and retirement of Superintending Engineer, PWRD, Cachar Road Circle, Silchar and Chairman of the Enquiry Committee, the time for submission of report by the Committee had been extended by three more months till 9.2.2021 vide speaking order No. 27 of 2021 dated 12.11.2020. It is also submitted that as on the date of filing of the affidavit- in-opposition, i.e., 3.2.2021, the sitting of the Enquiry Committee to place on 7 dates, i.e., 1.6.2020, 23.6.2020, 2.7.2020, 21.7.2020, 29.7.2020, 3.11.2020 and 25.1.2021. It is also submitted that the Enquiry Committee is likely to submit a report in a short time. Accordingly, the prayers made in this writ petition are opposed. 5. Perused the writ petition, affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply as well as documents appended thereto. 6. The court is bound by the ratio laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) and Atfur Rahman (supra). However, the ratio of the said two cited cases does not preclude the court to examine the facts of this particular case. In the present case in hand, Annexure-D to the affidavit—in-opposition discloses that 27 serious tomplairits against the petitioner including the three suspension orders is on record. The supporting documents appended are annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition. It is also seen that earlier vide office order No. DP-1 dated 30.5.2015, penalties was imposed on the petitioner by ordering (1) with holding of (one) increment without cumulative effect, and (2) censure with warning that the petitioner will not repeat such behaviour as alleged with the authority in future. As the court is not in considering the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, it would suffice for the purpose of this order that the complaints, amongst others, relate to threatening the superior officers and demanding money. 7. The sequence of events operating against the petitioner, as mentioned Sl. No. Date Subject/Charges (Gist). 1. 31.10.2000 1st suspension order. 2. As the court is not in considering the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, it would suffice for the purpose of this order that the complaints, amongst others, relate to threatening the superior officers and demanding money. 7. The sequence of events operating against the petitioner, as mentioned Sl. No. Date Subject/Charges (Gist). 1. 31.10.2000 1st suspension order. 2. 15.7.2005 Irregularity and absence from duty; rude and misbehaviour with gazetted officers, demand of money from field officers and threatening to officers. 3. 29.6.2005 Threatening calls made in night and demanding money on two occasions. 4. 13.1.2006 Complaint regarding irregular duty and leaving office regularly without notice. 5. 16.2.2006 Letter by Chief Engineer, PWRD, to take action against the petitioner. 6. 25.7.2006 Frequent unnecessary deputations in the name of PWD Employee's Union and demanding undue advantage; interference with office administration. 7. 27.7.2006 Explanation sought from the petitioner. 8. 7.8.2006 Information given to petitioner regarding his untrustworthiness. 9. 8.8.2006 Unlawful activities in the name of PWD Employee's Union in violation of rules 3(1), 7, 15, 21 of the Assam Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1965. 10. 22.8.2006 Executive Engineer writes to the Chief Engineer, PWRD, seeking transfer of petitioner on the ground of lack of integrity and unlawful activities in the name of Union, hampering work 11. 18.7.2009 Explanation sought from the petitioner. Warned and cautioned of disciplinary action. 12. 22.3.2010 Detailed report by S.E., opining that activities is not encouraging, behaviour-negative attitude, integrity-poor. Petitioner had engaged himself in agitation programmes, utilizes other staffs to put officers under pressure and creating embarrassing situation. 13. 10.8.2011 Reply to letters by State Information Commission regarding the petitioner. 14. 10.1.2014 Complaint regarding mental harassment, putting false blames. This was pursuant to complaint letter dated 26.10.2013 by J.E. and 115 employees. 15. 29.3.2014 Complaint regarding denial of receipt of P.L.I. policy submitted by one employee. 16. 24.7.20142 2nd suspension order. 17. Missed out Missed out. 18. 1.8.2014 Request made to depute Magistrate to recover documents from custody of the petitioner. 19. 17.12.2014 Report by Deputy Commissioner against the petitioner. 20. 26.3.2015 Appellate order in appeal. 21. 4.3.2015 Enquiry report. 22. 4.12.2015 Enquiry report submitted. 23. 14.12.2015 Proposal to impose penalty on petitioner. 24. 15.9.2016 After revoking suspension, petitioner made vigorous attempt to transfer employees, got himself an order to deal with bills by pressurizing E.E. Later on orders recalled. 25. 22.4.2020 Complaint by four contractors forwarded. 26. 20. 26.3.2015 Appellate order in appeal. 21. 4.3.2015 Enquiry report. 22. 4.12.2015 Enquiry report submitted. 23. 14.12.2015 Proposal to impose penalty on petitioner. 24. 15.9.2016 After revoking suspension, petitioner made vigorous attempt to transfer employees, got himself an order to deal with bills by pressurizing E.E. Later on orders recalled. 25. 22.4.2020 Complaint by four contractors forwarded. 26. 19.5.2020 3rd suspension order. 27. 1.6.2020 E.E. informed that the petitioner did not hand over cheque books, keys of almirah and locker, paralyzing works. Request was made to depute a Magistrate to recover those. Documents handed over by petitioner on 23.6.2020 after 34 days of suspension. 8. 7.8.2006 Information given to petitioner regarding his untrustworthiness. 9. 8.8.2006 Unlawful activities in the name of PWD Employee's Union in violation of rules 3(1), 7, 15, 21 of the Assam Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1965. 10. 22.8.2006 Executive Engineer writes to the Chief Engineer, PWRD, seeking transfer of petitioner on the ground of lack of integrity and unlawful activities in the name of Union, hampering work 11. 18.7.2009 Explanation sought from the petitioner. Warned and cautioned of disciplinary action. 12. 22.3.2010 Detailed report by S.E., opining that activities is not encouraging, behaviour-negative attitude, integrity-poor. Petitioner had engaged himself in agitation programmes, utilizes other staffs to put officers under pressure and creating embarrassing situation. 13. 10.8.2011 Reply to letters by State Information Commission regarding the petitioner. 14. 10.1.2014 Complaint regarding mental harassment, putting false blames. This was pursuant to complaint letter dated 26.10.2013 by J.E. and 115 employees. 15. 29.3.2014 Complaint regarding denial of receipt of P.L.I. policy submitted by one employee. 16. 24.7.20142 2nd suspension order. 17. Missed out Missed out. 18. 1.8.2014 Request made to depute Magistrate to recover documents from custody of the petitioner. 19. 17.12.2014 Report by Deputy Commissioner against the petitioner. 20. 26.3.2015 Appellate order in appeal. 21. 4.3.2015 Enquiry report. 22. 4.12.2015 Enquiry report submitted. 23. 14.12.2015 Proposal to impose penalty on petitioner. 24. 15.9.2016 After revoking suspension, petitioner made vigorous attempt to transfer employees, got himself an order to deal with bills by pressurizing E.E. Later on orders recalled. 25. 22.4.2020 Complaint by four contractors forwarded. 26. 19.5.2020 3rd suspension order. 27. 1.6.2020 E.E. informed that the petitioner did not hand over cheque books, keys of almirah and locker, paralyzing works. Request was made to depute a Magistrate to recover those. 25. 22.4.2020 Complaint by four contractors forwarded. 26. 19.5.2020 3rd suspension order. 27. 1.6.2020 E.E. informed that the petitioner did not hand over cheque books, keys of almirah and locker, paralyzing works. Request was made to depute a Magistrate to recover those. Documents handed over by petitioner on 23.6.2020 after 34 days of suspension. 8. In the case of Ajay Choudhary (supra), the said appellant was suspended on 30.9.2011, his suspension was extended on 28.12.2011, i.e., after 180 days. The order of extending stay was unsuccessfully challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘CAT’). Thereafter, the third and fourth extension of the appellant's suspension was ordered on 21.12.2012 and 22.3.2013. The matter was assailed again before CAT and by order dated 22.5.2013, the learned CAT opined that no employee can be indefinitely suspended and accordingly, it was provided that if no charge-memo was issued to the appellant within 21.6.2013, the appellant would be reinstated. It was also ordered that if it was decided to conduct an enquiry, it had to be concluded in time bound manner. This order was assailed by the Union of India before Delhi High Court and the writ petition was allowed by directing the Union of India to pass appropriate orders “as to whether it wishes to continue with the suspension or not having regard to all the relevant factors, including report of the CBI, if any, it might have received by now and it was also directed that the said exercise should be completed as early as possible and within two week from the date of the order. The said order was appealed before the Supreme Court of India. The operative part of the judgment rendered in the case of Ajay Choudhary (supra) is quoted below. “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. 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. 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. 22. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the appellant has now been served with a charge sheet, and, therefore, these directions may not be relevant to him any longer. However, if the appellant is so advised he may challenge his continued suspension m any manner known to law, and this action of the respondents Will be subject to judicial review.” 9. The herein before referred decision of Ajay Choudhary (supra) does not lay down a hard and fast rule that continued suspension after service of charge sheet was bad in law. This can be understood from para 25 of the herein above quoted extract of the order by holding that as charge sheet had been served, “the directions issued by it would not be relevant to his case.” 10. In this present case in hand, unlike facts in the case of Ajay Choudhary (supra), the case also, the disciplinary proceedings have already been initiated and charge-memo with definite charges have been served on the petitioner. In this present case in hand, unlike facts in the case of Ajay Choudhary (supra), the case also, the disciplinary proceedings have already been initiated and charge-memo with definite charges have been served on the petitioner. The petitioner was served with suspension order (third in his career) on 19.5.2020, followed by issuance of show-cause notice on 20.5.2021, which was followed by second show-cause notice dated 14.9.2020, which was accompanied with statement of allegations and list of documents. In para 11 of their affidavit-in-opposition, cause of delay has been attributed to COVID-19 pandemic situation, consecutive retirement of 2 Additional Chief Engineers, PWRD, Barak Valley, Silchar and retirement of Superintending Engineer, PWRD, Cachar Road Circle, Silchar and Chairman of the Enquiry Committee. It is projected that the time for submission of report by the Committee had been extended by three more months till 9.2.2021 vide speaking order No. 27 of 2021 dated 12.11.2020 and that as on 3.2.2021, i.e., the date of filing of the affidavit-in- opposition, the sitting of the Enquiry Committee took place on 7 dates, i.e., 1.6.2020, 23.6.2020, 2.7.2020, 21.7.2020, 29.7.2020, 3.11.2020 and 25.1.2021 and that the Enquiry Committee report was likely to be submitted within a short time. The court is bound to take notice of restricted officers, etc., due to COVID-19 pandemic, which is continuing till this date, which in turn has caused undue delay in all conceivable official and/or Governmental activities and it is quite possible that the enquiry and/or disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner got delayed. 11. Therefore, when the allegations against the petitioner is that he (i) lacks integrity, (ii) is untrustworthy, (iii) lacks devotion to duty, (iv) pressurizes and threatens superior officials, (v) demands money from field officers, etc., it is found that the case of Ajay Choudhary (supra) and Atfur Rahman (supra) do not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Therefore, taking note of the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, the court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit and proper case for ordering quashing of the Impugned order of suspension dated 19.5.2020. Accordingly, the court is inclined to order as follows (a) The disciplinary proceedings be concluded within an outer period of 45 days from the date of this order. Accordingly, the court is inclined to order as follows (a) The disciplinary proceedings be concluded within an outer period of 45 days from the date of this order. (b) It is needless to mention that in order to complete the disciplinary proceedings within the time stipulated above, the petitioner is expected to give fullest co-operation to the respondents. (c) If the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner cannot be concluded within the herein before allowed period of 45 days, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate order to reinstate the petitioner in service with full salary and other emoluments. However, it would be open to the respondents to treat the petitioner on leave, pending departmental proceeding, with entitlement to full salary till logical conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding. 12. This writ petition stands disposed of in terms of above. However, there shall be no order as to costs.