JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 22.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4883 of 2022, disposing of the writ petition with certain observations. 3. The writ petition was filed essentially raising a grievance with regard to an order of suspension dated 22.03.2022. 4. The writ petitioner is working on the post of Pharmacist Grade II in District Hospital, Bemetara. 5. After suspension of the writ petitioner, a charge-sheet was issued on 22.04.2022. The charge reads as under: ^^01- fnukad 11-03-2022 dks ftyk fpfdRlky;] csesrjk esa vkifRrtud fofM;ks fjdkfMZax ds laca/k esa ftyk Lrjh; takp ny dh ÁfØ;k esa tkucw>dj ck/kk mRiUu fd;k tkdj 'kkldh; vkns'k dk vogsyuk fd;k x;k rFkk takp vf/kdkfj;ksa ds lkFk vHknzrk fd;k x;kA mDr d`R; NRrhlxढ + flfoy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e 1965 ds fu;e 03 ds ¼1½¼,d½¼nks½¼rhu½ ds fo:) gSA** 6. Though a period of 90 days had elapsed from the date of suspension on 22.03.2022, no order of extension was issued and the petitioner continued to remain under suspension and it is in that circumstance, the petitioner had approached this Court ventilating his grievance with regard to her continued suspension. 7. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge goes to show that reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, through its Secretary & Another, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 . 8. The learned Single Judge opined that since an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 13.05.2022 after charges were framed on 22.04.2022, the decision rendered in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) will not be of any assistance to the petitioner as the suspension is not for a long period. 9. The petitioner has filed a covering memo dated 07.09.2022 stating that after the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed on 13.05.2022, no further progress has taken place in the departmental proceedings. 10. We are of the opinion that the observation of the learned Single Judge, as noted above, is not correct. 11. 9. The petitioner has filed a covering memo dated 07.09.2022 stating that after the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed on 13.05.2022, no further progress has taken place in the departmental proceedings. 10. We are of the opinion that the observation of the learned Single Judge, as noted above, is not correct. 11. In Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 21, has categorically held that currency of the suspension order should not exceed beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee, and if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. 12. Therefore, there is a mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even if the charge-sheet is filed, in order to continue the order of suspension, a reasoned order has to follow. It is not dependent upon whether the suspension is for a short period or a long period. 13. Ms. Astha Shukla fairly submits that she has received instructions which are to the effect that no order of extension of the suspension period has been passed continuing the suspension beyond 90 days. 14. In that view of the matter, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.07.2022 as well as the order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the Collector, Bemetara, are set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. 15. The writ appeal is allowed.