JUDGMENT : 1. In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Shri Ennyo Nangkar, has put to challenge the legality and validity of the Order No. LMD-11-11/1/2021, dated 30.09.2021, and the Order No. LMD-11011/1/2021/560, dated 20.01.2022, issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned order dated 30.09.2021, the petitioner was suspended from his service w.e.f. 29.09.2021, on being detained in custody for more than 48 (fourty eight) hours in connection with SIC(Vig) P.S. Case No. 03/2021, under Sections 120(B)/409/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(c) & 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, and vide impugned order dated 20.01.2022, the suspension order of the petitioner was extended for further period of 180 days without issuance of Memorandum of Article of Charges. 2. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is briefly stated as under:- “The petitioner was serving as Director, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and he was placed under suspension vide Order No.LMD-11-11/1/2021, dated 30.09.2021, by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and signed by the Secretary, Land Management to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, on 04.10.2021, upon his detention in police custody on 29.09.2021 for more than 48 (forty eight) hours in connection with SIC(Vig) P.S. Case No. 03/2021, under Sections 120(B)/409/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code readwith Section 13(1)(c) & 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, and before his suspension, he was attached with the Office of the respondent No. 1 after registration of the aforementioned case. The aforementioned case was registered in connection with some irregularities, allegedly committed by him in the process of fixation of land revenue and other assets rate against the land acquired for railway project from Ruskin to Murkong Select to Pasighat. After his arrest, he was in jail hajot till 28.10.2021, and thereafter, he was granted bail by this Court. Thereafter, on 12.12.2021, the petitioner filed one representation before the respondent authority for revocation of the suspension order, but the respondent authority did not pay any heed to the same. After his arrest, he was in jail hajot till 28.10.2021, and thereafter, he was granted bail by this Court. Thereafter, on 12.12.2021, the petitioner filed one representation before the respondent authority for revocation of the suspension order, but the respondent authority did not pay any heed to the same. Subsequently, his suspension order was reviewed on 20.01.2022 and extended the suspension period for another 180 days without initiating departmental proceeding and serving Memorandum of Article of Charges and, as such, the respondent authorities have violated the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 , where emphasis is laid for initiation of departmental proceeding within 90 (ninety) days of the currency period of suspension. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition.” 3. I have heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Dabi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Riram, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate representing State respondent No. 1 and Mr. D.Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel, Land Management Department, representing respondent No. 2. 4. Mr. M. Pertin, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 29.09.2021 and the same was reviewed by the respondent authority on 20.01.2022 and extended for another 180 days. Mr. Pertin further submits that within the period of 3 (three) months, as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the respondent authorities has failed to initiate departmental proceeding against him and also failed to furnish Memorandum of Article of Charges against him and as such, extension of the suspension period for another 180 days, is against the principle of natural justice. 5. On the other hand, Mr. D. Kamduk, the learned Standing Counsel, Land Management Department, submits that the Memorandum of Article of Charges had been furnished to the petitioner on 04.02.2022, but till date no reply has been received by the Department. Mr. Kamduk further submits that the Memorandum of Article of Charges could not be furnished to the petitioner on time as he left the station without informing the respondent authorities. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been cooperating with the respondent authorities. Mr. Kamduk, therefore, contended to dismiss the petition. Mr. Mr. Kamduk further submits that the Memorandum of Article of Charges could not be furnished to the petitioner on time as he left the station without informing the respondent authorities. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been cooperating with the respondent authorities. Mr. Kamduk, therefore, contended to dismiss the petition. Mr. Kamduk further submits that he may be allowed to file one detail affidavit-in-opposition in this regard. 6. Objecting the prayer of Mr. D. Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel, Land Management Department, Mr. M. Pertin, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that allowing the respondent authorities to file detail affidavit-in-opposition would not change the factual as well as legal position here in this case, as admittedly herein this case the petitioner was not served with the Memorandum of Article of Charges within the stipulated period of 90 (ninety) days. Mr. Pertin also drawn the attention of this Court to an Office Memorandum, dated 23.08.2016, issued by the Director (E), Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, Establishment A-III vide No. F.NO./11012/04/2016-Estt.(A), and submits that the respondent authorities have failed to follow the mandate of the said memorandum. Mr. Pertin, therefore contended to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned orders. 7. The submissions of learned Advocates of both sides received due consideration of this court. Also I have perused the pleading of the petitioner. It is to be noted here that the respondent authorities have not submitted any counter affidavit here in this case. I have also gone through the case law, relied upon by Mr. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Office Memorandum No. F.NO./11012/04/2016-Estt.(A), dated 23.08.2016. The Office Memorandum is read as under:- “F.No. 11012/04/2016-Estt.(A) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel & Training Establishment A-III Desk North Block, New Delhi – 110001 Dated August 23, 2016 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 instructions regarding timely issue of Charge-sheet -regarding. The undersigned is directed to refer to DoP&T’s O.M. No. 11012/17/2013-Estt.A-III dated 3rd July, 2015 on the above mentioned subject and to say that in a recent case, Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India Civil Appeal no. The undersigned is directed to refer to DoP&T’s O.M. No. 11012/17/2013-Estt.A-III dated 3rd July, 2015 on the above mentioned subject and to say that in a recent case, Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India Civil Appeal no. 1912 of 2015 dated 16/02/2015, the Apex Court has directed as follows: “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.” 2. In compliance of the above judgment, it has been decided that where a Government servant: is placed under suspension, the order of suspension should not extend beyond three months, if within this period the charge-sheet is not served to the charged officer. As such, it should be ensured that the charge-sheet is issued before expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension. As the suspension will lapse in case this time line is not adhered to, a close watch needs to be kept at all levels to ensure that charge-sheets are issued in time. 3. As such, it should be ensured that the charge-sheet is issued before expiry of 90 days from the date of suspension. As the suspension will lapse in case this time line is not adhered to, a close watch needs to be kept at all levels to ensure that charge-sheets are issued in time. 3. It should also be ensured that disciplinary proceedings are initiated as far as practicable in cases where an investigating agency is seized of the matter or criminal proceedings have been launched. Clarifications in this regard have already been issued vide O.M. No. 11012/6/2007-Estt.A-III dated 21.07.2016. 4. All Ministries/Departments/Offices’ are requested to bring the above guidelines to the notice of all Disciplinary Authorities under their control. 5. Hindi version will follow. (Mukesh Chaturvedi) Director (E) Tel: 23093176” 7. The legal position, that can be crystallized from the aforesaid Office Memorandum is that whenever Government servant is placed under suspension, the order of suspension should not be extend beyond three months if within the period of three 3 months the charge sheet is not served to the charged officer. The Memorandum was issued by the Government in order to give effect to the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). 8. It is to be noted here that in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “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. 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.” 9. In view of the above ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), and also in view of the Office Memorandum discussed herein above, I find sufficient force in the submission of Mr. M. Pertin, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, which is based upon sound principles of law. 10. It appears that the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 30.09.2021 as he was detained in custody for more than 48 (fourty eight) hours in connection with SIC(Vig) P.S. Case No. 03/2021, under Sections 120(B)/409/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(c) & 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. It also appears that the aforementioned case has been registered against the petitioner in connection with alleged irregularity in the process of fixation of land value and other assets rate against the land acquired for railway project from Ruskin to Murkong Select to Pasighat. While the petitioner was suspended on 30.09.2021, the respondent authorities have failed to furnish the Memorandum of Article of Charges to the petitioner within 90 (ninety) days. Though the petitioner has submitted one representation on 12.12.2021, yet, the same has not been considered by the respondent authority instead his suspension order was reviewed on 20.01.2022 and it was extended for another 180 days. According to Mr. Pertin, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, it is the gross violation of principle of natural justice. 11. Though the petitioner has submitted one representation on 12.12.2021, yet, the same has not been considered by the respondent authority instead his suspension order was reviewed on 20.01.2022 and it was extended for another 180 days. According to Mr. Pertin, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, it is the gross violation of principle of natural justice. 11. It also appears that having failed to submit the Memorandum of Article of Charges within the period of 90 (ninety) days, the respondent authorities have extended the suspension period beyond the period of 90 (ninety) days for another period of 180 days in a most mechanical manner. Thus, the impugned order, dated 20.01.2022, passed by the respondent authorities, appears to be illegal and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and it is against the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965, and the law, laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The impugned order is, thus, discriminatory and is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Where there is violation of Article 14 by a state action, it is a violation of the principle of natural justice as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398 and since the action of the respondent authorities violates the right guaranteed to the petitioner, the same has to be struck down. 12. In view of the above, the impugned order, dated 20.01.2022, vide No. LMD-11011/1/2021/560, by which the State respondent has extended the suspension period of the petitioner for further period of 180 days without issuance of Memorandum of Article of Charges, stands set aside and quashed. By a mandamus of this Court, the respondent authorities are directed to revoke the suspension order of the petitioner and to reinstate him to the service with immediate effect. Upon such reinstatement, the petitioner will be entitled to get all the service benefit w.e.f. 29.12.2021 as per his entitlement. 13. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.