JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. Taka Kichu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. K, Angami, the learned learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1. I have also heard Mr. Nongosa, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the suspension Order No. ELE/ESTT-10/2017-18/129 dated 05.06.2023 issued by the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, Nagaland and further seeking a direction upon the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner in service and pay all financial benefits as per the service rule. 3. From a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that the Petitioner herein was working as a LDA-cum-Computer Assistant in the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Nagaland. Vide an order dated 05.06.2023, the Petitioner was suspended in terms with Rule 6(2) of the Nagaland Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967 (for short ‘the Rules of 1967’) on the ground that the Petitioner herein was arrested on 26.04.2023 and was in police custody for 3 days i.e. exceeding 48 hours and thereafter forwarded to the judicial custody. 4. It is further seen from the records that the Petitioner herein though was arrested but subsequently vide an order dated 16.05.2023, he was released on bail by the learned District and Session Judge, Kohima. This aspect of the matter was duly intimated to the Chief Electoral Officer, Nagaland vide a representation dated 04.07.2023. After due intimation on 04.07.2023, the Petitioner continued to remain in suspension and there was no steps taken by the Respondent Authorities either to serve any Memorandum of Charge or even review the suspension order which is required as per law and as such, the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 5. It is seen that this Court vide an order dated 29.04.2024 had issued notice. It appears that when the matter was taken up by this Court on 05.12.2024, this Court enquired as to how the suspension order was continued for a period of more than one year five months and as to whether the same would not be contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 . Union of India and Another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 . This Court had also enquired as to whether the Respondents have in the meantime served the Memorandum of Charge/Charge Sheet upon the Petitioner. 6. Mr. Nongosa, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that an affidavit-in-opposition was field on 05.12.2024 wherein it has been mentioned that on 04.12.2024 and charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner. The said charge sheet is enclosed to the said affidavit-in-opposition. It was also mentioned that the said charge sheet was received by the Petitioner on 04.12.2024 at 1.57 P.M. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and had perused the materials on record. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the law mandates that within 3 months from the date of suspension, the Petitioner had to be served with the Memorandum of Charge/Charge Sheet and if it is not done as per the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the suspension order cannot further be extended. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that not only there is a requirement of serving of Memorandum of Charge/Charge Sheet to the delinquent employee within a period of 3 months, but also immediately after the issuance of the Memorandum of Charge/Charge Sheet, there has to be reasoned order as to why the delinquent employee is required to be kept under suspension. In that regard, the learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to Paragraph Nos. 21 and 22 of the judgment in the case of AjayKumar Choudhary (supra). 9. Taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), this Court enquired with the learned Standing counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as to whether pursuant to the issuance of Memorandum of Charges, there has been any order passed giving due reasons for extending the suspension. The learned Standing counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with all his fairness submitted that to his instruction, no such order exists. 10. This Court for the sake of convenience finds it relevant to reproduce Paragraph No. 21 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra)which are herein under: “21. The learned Standing counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with all his fairness submitted that to his instruction, no such order exists. 10. This Court for the sake of convenience finds it relevant to reproduce Paragraph No. 21 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra)which are herein under: “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 person concerned 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. 11. From a perusal of the above paragraph, it is clear that there is a requirement for serving the Memorandum of Charge/Charge Sheet within a period of 3 months from the date of the suspension. In the instant case, the suspension order was passed on 05.06.2023 however the Memorandum of Charge/Charge Sheet was not served upon the Petitioner till 04.12.2024. 11. From a perusal of the above paragraph, it is clear that there is a requirement for serving the Memorandum of Charge/Charge Sheet within a period of 3 months from the date of the suspension. In the instant case, the suspension order was passed on 05.06.2023 however the Memorandum of Charge/Charge Sheet was not served upon the Petitioner till 04.12.2024. It is further relevant herein to mention that upon the Memorandum of Charge/Charge Sheet being served upon the delinquent employee -the Petitioner herein, then there is a further requirement that the said suspension order has to be extended by giving due reasons. In the instant case, there is no order for extending the suspension order thereby the continuation of the order dated 05.06.2023 is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Supra(supra)and accordingly, this Court therefore is of the opinion that the further continuation of the impugned suspension order dated 05.06.2023 would be an infraction to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. 12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The further continuation of the suspension order dated 05.06.2023 as on date is bad in law and accordingly interfered with. (ii) The Respondent Authorities herein are directed forthwith to reinstate the Petitioner to his service. (iii) The Respondent Authorities are given the liberty to place the Petitioner in any of its Offices so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the departmental proceedings so initiated against him. (iv) This Court further observes that in the circumstances, the Respondent Authorities proposes to put the Petitioner under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings, the same shall only be done by passing a Speaking Order and the same shall be subject to judicial review. (v) The question of the financial benefits which the Petitioner sought for in the present proceedings would be subject to the Departmental Proceedings so initiated against the Petitioner. (vi) The Respondents are directed to complete the Departmental Proceedings at the earliest and preferably within 6 (six) months from the date of the certified copy of the instant judgment is served upon the Respondent No.2.