ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Riram, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate representing the State respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned Order, Memo No. DUD/Estt-727/2020-21/3294-301 dated 21.08.2020 (signed and issued on 23.03.2020) issued by Secretary, Department of Urban and Housing, Government of Arunachal Pradesh by which the suspension period of the petitioner has been extended for a further period of 180 days w.e.f. 31.05.2020. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the action of the respondent authority in putting him under suspension for an indefinite period by extending the suspension period beyond ninety (90) days without there being any periodic review as required under the Rules. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner, who is working as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the office of the Chief Engineer, Department of Urban Development and Housing, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, was arrested on 02.03.2020 pursuant to the FIR being Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 22/2020, under Sections 376/511/448 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act, on the report lodged by one Shri Kimar Diyum on 01.03.2020, alleging that the petitioner has attempted to rape and molest his minor daughter on 27.02.2020. 4. Following the arrest and detention of the petitioner for a period exceeding 48 hours, the respondent authority vide Order, Memo. No. DUD/Estt-409/2007-08(Part)/11,346-53 dated 23.03.2020, placed the petitioner under deemed suspension with effect from the date of his detention in terms of sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule, 1965 [In short CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965] until further orders. 5. The police filed charge-sheet on 03.07.2020 and the POCSO Case No. 06/2020 is pending trial at the stage of prosecution evidence before the Special Judge, POCSO, Yupia. 6. The respondent authority has issued the impugned Order dated 03.09.2020 by which the suspension period of the petitioner has been extended for a further period of hundred and eighty (180) days with effect from 31.05.2020. The suspension Order dated 23.03.2020 was required to be reviewed by constituting a review committee before the expiry of ninety (90) days, which was on 31.05.2020. 7. The petitioner had been placed under deemed suspension in terms of Rule 10 (2)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965. The suspension Order dated 23.03.2020 was required to be reviewed by constituting a review committee before the expiry of ninety (90) days, which was on 31.05.2020. 7. The petitioner had been placed under deemed suspension in terms of Rule 10 (2)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965. Rule 10(6) of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 10 shall be reviewed by the Review Committee on the question as to whether the suspension is required to be extended any further or not, before the expiry of ninety (90) days from the effective date of suspension and if it is required it shouldn’t be for a period exceeding hundred and eighty (180) days at a time. Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Order 10(1) or (2) of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 shall not be valid after a period of ninety (90) days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety (90) days. 8. The respondent authority, thereafter, extended the suspension period of the petitioner vide Orders, dated 10.12.2020, 13.01.2021, 29.06.2021, 06.11.2021, 18.01.2022, 15.07.2022 and finally vide order dated 13.12.2022 the suspension period of the petitioner has been extended for a further period of hundred and eighty (180) days w.e.f. 17.12.2022 to 14.06.2023. 9. Mr. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the initial extension of the suspension period vide impugned Order dated 03.09.2020 is per se illegal and without authority, all subsequent orders are also illegal and without any authority. He further submits that the impugned extension Order dated 03.09.2020 and the subsequent orders thereby extending the period of suspension of the petitioner from time to time without there being any periodic review before the expiry of extended period of suspension is invalid. Any review of the suspension period after the expiry of the extended period is also invalid. Therefore, the action of the respondent authority in putting the petitioner under suspension without there being any periodic review within prescribed period is illegal and liable to be set aside and quashed. 10. Any review of the suspension period after the expiry of the extended period is also invalid. Therefore, the action of the respondent authority in putting the petitioner under suspension without there being any periodic review within prescribed period is illegal and liable to be set aside and quashed. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, prays for a direction to revoke the suspension of the petitioner with immediate effect and the petitioner be reinstated in his service as LDC by treating him as deemed in service with effect from 01.06.2020 and also for grant of all the consequential financial and other related service benefits to the petitioner. 11. To bolster his argument, Mr. Sonar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon the following cases: (i) Ajay Kumar Choudhury vs. Union of India, 2015 (7) SCC 291 (ii) Mirpe Tatu vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others, 2021 (3) GLT 189 12. Mr. I. Riram, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, while referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondents, submits that the cause of arrest of the petitioner effected on 02.03.2020 was for alleged rape and molestation of a mentally retarded/disabled minor girl which can be termed as one of the most heinous and disgraceful acts of the petitioner in the human era. The alleged crime had attracted such a magnitude of criticism that all the right thinking people of society had extended their strongest condemnation. To add the spark on the situation, several women organizations had joined the band wagon and registered their anguish and protest. They had also appeal to the designated POCSO Court not to grant bail as well to the respondent authorities to not revoke the suspension order of the petitioner. Further, so long the case is pending in the designated POCSO Court and at the same time there is hue and cry from many women organizations, the respondent authority had left with no option then to extend the suspension period of petitioner to avoid any Law and Order problem or any other untoward situation or incident. 13. Mr. Riram, learned Addl. 13. Mr. Riram, learned Addl. Government Advocate submits that the Department had written several times to Women Police Station, Itanagar, for providing the Charge-sheet of the case so that a parallel departmental enquiry could be conducted on the petitioner and to decide on the revocation or extension of suspension order which has bearing on the report of charge-sheet. But no response had been received by the respondent authority and as such the respondent authority had extended the suspension period of the petitioner from time to time. 14. It is also further submitted that it was due to the unprecedented outbreak of Covid-19 and the Lockdown w.e.f. 25.03.2020 to 31.05.2020 the instruction issued under the Rule 10(6) and (7) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 could not be adhered to. 15. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 16. Rule 10(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides that the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order, may place a Government Servant under suspension: (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending. (aa) where, in the opinion of the authority aforesaid, he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State. (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. 17. Rule 10(2) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides that a Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority: (a) With effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours. (b) With effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction. 18. (b) With effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction. 18. Rule 10(6) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension before expiry of ninety (90) days from the effective date of suspension on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days (180) at a time. 19. Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety (90) days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety (90) days. 20. A bare reading of the provisions of the above Rule would show that it is mandatory under the law that, if, the authority intends to extend the original suspension period, the same has to be done before the expiry of ninety (90) days and the suspension order cannot be further extended by subsequent order after the expiry of ninety (90) days from the date of original suspension order under any circumstances and the same has to be extended after a periodic review before expiry of ninety (90) days. 21. Indisputably the petitioner had been placed under deemed suspension in terms of Rule 10 (2)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965. Rule 10(6) of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 10 shall be reviewed by the Review Committee on the question as to whether the suspension is required to be extended any further or not, before the expiry of ninety (90) days from the effective date of suspension and if it is required it shouldn’t be for a period exceeding hundred and eighty (180) days at a time. Rule 10(7) of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Order 10(1) or (2) of CCS (CCA) Rule, 1965 shall not be valid after a period of ninety (90) days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety (90) days. 22. Be it noted that the petitioner was arrested and detained in connection with Itanagar Women Police Station Case No. 22/2020 under Sections 376/511/448 of the IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. Following such arrest of the petitioner since the detention period had exceeded 48 hours, the petitioner was placed under deemed suspension vide order dated 23.03.2020 with effect from 02.03.2020. 23. On careful consideration of the materials, it appears that the suspension Order dated 23.03.2020 has not been reviewed before the expiry of ninety (90) days by constituting a review committee, which had expired on 31.05.2020. The suspension of the petitioner was extended for a further period of hundred and eighty (180) days w.e.f. 31.05.2020 vide impugned order dated 03.09.2020. Thereafter, the suspension period of the petitioner has been extended from time to time for a further period of hundred and eighty (180) days, the last being the order dated 13.12.2022 w.e.f. 17.12.2022 to 14.06.2023. 24. This Court also take note of the fact that in the criminal proceeding the charge has been framed against the petitioner and the petitioner is on trial which is at the stage of prosecution evidence before the Special Judge, POCSO Yupia. 25. The Office Memorandum dated 23.08.2016 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Govt. of India, provides 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/Official, it should be ensured that the charge sheet is issued before expiry of ninety (90) days from the date of suspension. 26. On consideration of the materials on record, this court finds that there is nothing on record to show that any charge memo has been served to the petitioner, albeit the filing of Charge-sheet by the police and consequent framing of charge and pending of trial. 27. 26. On consideration of the materials on record, this court finds that there is nothing on record to show that any charge memo has been served to the petitioner, albeit the filing of Charge-sheet by the police and consequent framing of charge and pending of trial. 27. In the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months, if within these 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. It has also been held that suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the record, this would render it punitive in nature. Departmental/disciplinary proceedings invariably commence with delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the drawing up of the memorandum of charges, and eventually culminate after even longer delay. 28. Reverting back to the present case, as noted above, the petitioner was put under deemed suspension with effect from the date of his arrest w.e.f. 02.03.2020, thereafter vide order dated 03.09.2020, the suspension period of the petitioner was extended for a further period of 180 days w.e.f. 31.05.2020. However, it is not discernible that there was a periodical review before the expiry of ninety (90) days. 29. This Court also takes note that the allegation against the petitioner is heinous and serious in nature. At the same time the petitioner cannot be put on suspension indefinitely without following the requirement of the provisions of Rule. The plea of the State respondents that on several occasions the department had written to the Itanagar Women Police Station for providing the charge-sheet of the criminal case so as to enable them to have a parallel departmental enquiry and to decide the revocation or suspension of the order is preposterous and cannot be countenanced. It is well settled that the departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings can be proceeded simultaneously. 30. It is well settled that the departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings can be proceeded simultaneously. 30. It transpires that the first extension of the suspension period of the petitioner dated 23.03.2020 appears to have been issued without constituting a review committee before the expiry of ninety (90) days, which expired on 31.05.2020. It is also reveals that the department has not issued memorandum of charges except the trial being at the stage of prosecution evidence, thus, it is seen that no memorandum of charge for departmental proceeding has been issued not to talk of serving within ninety (90) days from the date of suspension of the petitioner on 23.03.2020. 31. In view of the above discussion and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the continuation of the suspension of the petitioner would be contrary to the law. Thus, the writ petition is deserved to be allowed. 32. Accordingly, present writ petition is allowed. The respondent authority is directed to reinstate the petitioner in his service with the consequential benefits, if any, in accordance with law. 33. The writ petition stands disposed of. 34. However, no order as to costs.