JUDGMENT : (S.N. Pathak, J.) The petitioner has challenged the decision contained in Ref. No. 112799 dated 02.09.2024, by which the petitioner has been put under suspension. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was initially appointed on 25.06.2013 on the post of Assistant Professor on contractual basis. After rendering almost five years of satisfactory service, the petitioner was appointed on regular post following the procedure pursuant to fresh advertisement on 16.01.2018. His service was confirmed in the month of July, 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Associate Professor, following the selection process in the respondent-University. It is further case of the petitioner that on 13.08.2024, the petitioner was asked to submit his reply on the allegation of making plan and to instigate the students to commit incidents within campus on 2nd and 3rd June, 2024. The petitioner replied the same and thereafter, a show cause was also issued to him on 22.08.2024. Though the petitioner replied the same, but he was put under suspension by order dated 02.09.2024, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the suspension order is neither sustainable in law nor on facts, inasmuch as, the same is passed by the incompetent authority. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner holding the post of Associate Professor, his suspension order ought to have been passed with the approval of the Executive Council, but from perusal of the suspension order, it could be gathered that no approval from the Executive Council was obtained. Assailing the suspension order, Mr. Tandon further submits that the order of suspension cannot be continued for more than 90 days, that too without drawing up charge-sheet. In the instant case, the petitioner was put under suspension on 02.09.2024 and till date, no charge-sheet has been submitted and hence, it cannot be continued any further. Referring to the charge, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was put under suspension only for conducting a fair enquiry and till date, nothing has been brought on record to show that even enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. Referring to the judgments rendered in the cases of State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 126 and Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Referring to the judgments rendered in the cases of State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 126 and Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 , learned counsel contends that since 90 days have already crossed, the petitioner is entitled for revocation of his suspension. 4. Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on instruction, submits that though he has not received any instruction for filing counter affidavit in the matter, but he submits that due to some personal difficulty of the respondents, it could not be filed. However, on instruction, learned counsel fairly submits that till date, no charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that what has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not a rule for revocation of suspension order, rather, it depends upon gravity of the misconduct. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference by this Court. Admittedly, the petitioner was put under suspension on 02.09.2024 for conducting a fair enquiry against the petitioner. Now the petitioner is continuing under suspension for more than three months. Still, no charge sheet has been drawn up against the petitioner and no explanation to that effect has been brought on record. Even no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and it is only submitted that due to personal difficulty, counter affidavit has not been filed. There may be several exigencies for not filing counter affidavit, but the fact remains that no counter affidavit has been filed. Normally, an employee is put under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. But in the present case, neither any departmental proceeding was initiated nor any charge-sheet has been drawn up. 6. From perusal of the suspension order, it is reflected that the respondents for ensuring a fair enquiry, put the petitioner under suspension, which has continued from 2.9.2024 till date. It appears that the respondents have not taken the matter very seriously. If the respondents wanted to conduct a fair enquiry, they ought to have issued charge-sheet and initiate a departmental proceeding. It appears that the respondents have not taken the matter very seriously. If the respondents wanted to conduct a fair enquiry, they ought to have issued charge-sheet and initiate a departmental proceeding. In absence of the same, it can safely be construed that suspension order was passed in a very perfunctory manner, which is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 126 , wherein Their Lordships held at para-13, which reads as under:- “13. It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge.” 8. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 has held at paragraphs-20 and 21, which read thus:- “20. It will be useful to recall that prior to 1973 an accused could be detained for continuous and consecutive periods of 15 days, albeit, after judicial scrutiny and supervision. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contains a new proviso which has the effect of circumscribing the power of 4 the Magistrate to authorise detention of an accused person beyond a period of 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and beyond a period of 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. Drawing support from the observations contained of the Division Bench in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar [ (1986) 4 SCC 481 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 511] and more so of the Constitution Bench in Antulay [ (1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93] , we are spurred to extrapolate the quintessence of the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC, 1973 to moderate suspension orders in cases of departmental/disciplinary enquiries also. It seems to us that if Parliament considered it necessary that a person be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be continued after the expiry of the similar period especially when a memorandum of charges/charge-sheet has not been served on the suspended person. It is true that the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr PC postulates personal freedom, but respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also be placed on the same pedestal. 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. ………….. ” 9. From perusal of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is manifestly evident that currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months, if within this period the memorandum of charge/sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee. Since in the present case, the petitioner is continuing under suspension for more than three months and still neither charge-sheet has been submitted nor departmental proceeding has been initiated. As such, the order of suspension is fit to be quashed and set aside. 10. As a sequitur to the aforesaid rules, regulations, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the order contained in Ref. No. 112799 dated 02.09.2024, so far it relates to suspension of the petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to issue formal order for revocation of suspension of the petitioner at once. However, the respondents are at liberty to procced departmentally. Let it be made clear that if any departmental proceeding is initiated against the petitioner by framing memo of charge, the same shall be concluded or come to its logical end, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, after following the cardinal principle of natural justice and affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner at every stage of departmental proceeding. 11. With these observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.