JUDGMENT : Manish Choudhury, J. 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred inter-alia to assail a Suspension Order dated 15/19.06.2023 and for a direction to the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service by revoking the Suspension Order dated 15/19.06.2023. A direction has also been sought for grant of enhanced subsistence allowance @ 75% for the period beyond initial three months as the petitioner has only been paid subsistence allowance @ 50% till the date of preferring the writ petition. 2. The necessary and relevant events leading to the filing of the writ petition can be narrated, in brief, at first. 3. The petitioner, on 15.06.2023, was serving as a Lat Mondal, which post is subsequently redesignated as Land Record Assistant, under Bhuragaon Revenue Circle, District – Morigaon. For allegedly accepting a bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/- the petitioner was arrested on 15.06.2023 pursuant to a trap laid by officials from the ACB Police Station. The trap proceeding was contemplated on filing of a complaint by one Faizuddin before the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon on 08.06.2023. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant, Faizuddin, a case, ACB Police Station Case no. 43/2023 was registered and the petitioner was arrested during the course of investigation of ACB Police Station Case no. 43/2023. On an application filed for bail, the Court of learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record, allowed the prayer for bail by an Order dated 15.07.2023. 4. After the petitioner was arrested on 15.06.2023, the respondent no. 2, that is, the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon passed the impugned Order of Suspension on 15/19.06.2023 pending drawal of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. The Order of Suspension was made in exercise of the powers conferred by the Assam Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1964 [‘the 1964 Rules’, and/or ‘the Rules, 1964’, for short] without quoting the specific rule. The Order of Suspension mentioned that the suspension would come into effect immediately and the same was passed following receipt of a report from the Investigating Officer, ACB Police Station, O/o the Director of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Assam in connection with ACB Police Station 43/2023. 5. Subsequent to placing the petitioner under suspension by the Order dated 15/19.06.2023, the respondent no. 5. Subsequent to placing the petitioner under suspension by the Order dated 15/19.06.2023, the respondent no. 3 being the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner issued and served a Show Cause Notice dated 29.11.2023 upon the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1964 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India asking the petitioner as to why any of the penalties prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules, 1964 shall not be inflicted upon him on the charges, mentioned therein, based on the Statement of Allegation attached thereto. With the Show Cause Notice dated 29.11.2023, a Statement of Allegation, a List of Witnesses and a List of Documents were enclosed. The petitioner was asked to submit his Written Statement of Defence within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the Show Cause Notice. In response, the petitioner as the delinquent employee, submitted a Reply on 13.12.2023 refuting the allegations made in the Show Cause Notice. In the subsequent period, an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer came to be appointed and the disciplinary proceeding proceeded. 6. The petitioner has stated that he had duly participated in the disciplinary proceeding. The Inquiry Officer upon completion of the inquiry, submitted an Inquiry Report on 21.08.2024 before the Disciplinary Authority, that is, the respondent no. 3. On receipt of Inquiry Report, the respondent no. 3 as the Disciplinary Authority forwarded a copy of the Inquiry Report on 23.04.2025 to the delinquent employee, that is, the petitioner affording him an opportunity to submit his Representation. On receipt of the copy of the Inquiry Report, the petitioner responded by way of a Representation dated 03.05.2025. After receipt of the Representation, the respondent no. 3 by a Communication dated 23.05.2025 had forwarded the Inquiry Report along with the documentary evidence for information to and to obtain concurrence from the competent authority for early disposal of the disciplinary proceeding. 7. I have heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department for the respondent nos. 1 & 3; and Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 2. 8. Mr. 7. I have heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department for the respondent nos. 1 & 3; and Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 2. 8. Mr. Patowary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned Order of Suspension was passed on 15/19.06.2023 and the writ petition was filed on 30.07.2025, that is, after more than two years from the date of suspension. He has contended that though the petitioner came to be arrested in connection with ACB Police Station Case no. 43/2023, the impugned Order of Suspension was passed pending drawal of disciplinary proceeding and therefore, it is discernible that the impugned Order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 6[1][a] of the 1964 Rules. He has further submitted that the petitioner as the delinquent had duly participated at every stage of the disciplinary proceeding which has already been culminated in an Inquiry Report on 21.08.2024. It is his contention that after expiry of a period of three months from the Order of Suspension dated 15/19.06.2023, neither the respondent no. 2 nor the respondent no. 3 had reviewed the matter of suspension in order to extend the currency of the suspension period beyond the initial period of three months. He has further submitted that a Memorandum of Charges was prepared and served upon the petitioner vide the Show Cause Notice dated 29.11.2023, which was also beyond a period of three months from 15/19.06.2023. He has placed reliance in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ajay Kumar Choudhury vs. Union of India , [2015] 7 SCC 291 , more particularly, Paragraph 21 thereof to contend that in view of the combined failure on the part of the respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 3 either to review the matter of suspension or to issue the Memorandum of Charges within a period of three months from 15/19.06.2023, the period of suspension beyond the period of suspension is to be treated as non-est and invalid. He has further submitted that in view of the petitioner's prolonged period of suspension of more than twenty-six months till date, the matter of suspension has changed its colour to a measure of punishment. He has further submitted that in view of the petitioner's prolonged period of suspension of more than twenty-six months till date, the matter of suspension has changed its colour to a measure of punishment. He has referred to two decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Nagaland and others vs. Chubanungsang Imchen and another , 2019 [5] GLT 444 and Rakibuddin Ahmed vs. State of Assam and others , [2020] 2 GLR 621 . Mr. Patowary has also submitted that the actions and omissions on the part of the respondent authorities are also clearly in violation of an Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020 [Annexure-VIII]. 9. Mr. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department has submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner in ACB Police station Case no. 43/2003 are grievous in nature. He has fairly submitted that he is not aware whether the investigation carried out in connection with ACB Police Station Case no. 43/2003, as on date, has been completed or not in the form of any Final Report/Charge-Sheet. He has submitted that in so far as the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner is concerned, the proceeding has reached the stage of consideration of the Inquiry Report along with the Representation of the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority is expected to make his decision within a short period. He has submitted that since the inquiry has already been concluded resulting in submission of an Inquiry Report on 21.08.2024 and the matter is pending before the Disciplinary Authority for taking appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law, no interference with the matter of suspension at this stage is called for. In support of his submissions, he has referred to a decision of a coordinate bench in W.P.[C] no. 5966/2024 [ Pradip Kalita vs. State of Assam and others ] and a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation vs. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat and another , reported in [2022] INSC 377 10. The background facts are already narrated above. It is in such background, the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties are required to be considered. 11. The writ petition had been preferred after a period of two years from the date of passing of the Suspension Order dated 15/19.06.2023. The background facts are already narrated above. It is in such background, the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties are required to be considered. 11. The writ petition had been preferred after a period of two years from the date of passing of the Suspension Order dated 15/19.06.2023. As on date, a period of more than twenty-six months has elapsed from the date of the Suspension Order. 12. The power to place a Government servant under suspension has been provided in Rule 6 of the Rules, 1964. For the purpose of the case in hand, sub-rule [1] and sub-rule [2] of Rule 6 of the Rules, 1964 are found to be of relevance and therefore, the same are quoted below for ready reference :- [1] The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Governor in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension – [a] Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or [b] Where is the opinion of the authority aforesaid he has engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest or the security of the State; or [c] Where a case against him in respect any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial; Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the Appointing Authority such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was made. [2] A Government servant who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of such detention, by an order of the Appointing Authority and shall remain under suspension until further orders. Provided that where the detention is made on account of any charge not connected with his position as a Government servant or continuance in office is not likely to embarrass the Government or the Government servant in the discharge of his duties or the charge does not involve moral turpitude, the Appointing Authority may vacate the suspension order made or deemed to have been made when he is released on bail or is not otherwise in custody or imprisonment. 13. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ajay Kumar Choudhary [supra] has laid down the law that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within the said period of three months, the memorandum of charge / charge-sheet is not served. In order to extend the suspension period beyond the period of three months, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension period. It has been further held that if the memorandum of charges / charge-sheet is served within the period of three months, then also a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension period. 14. From a plain reading of the law so laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary [supra], it is discernible that the law so laid down is in two parts. The first situation envisaged is where a disciplinary proceeding has not been initiated against the delinquent officer / employee within a period of three months from the date such officer / employee was placed under suspension. In such situation, it has been laid down that the currency of the suspension period shall not extend beyond three months, if within the initial period of three months, the Memorandum of Charges / Charge-Sheet is not served upon the delinquent officer / employee and no reasoned order is passed extending the period of suspension. 15. The second situation envisaged in Ajay Kumar Choudhary [supra] contains a mandate that even in the event the Memorandum of Charges / Charge- Sheet is issued and served upon the delinquent officer / employee within a period of three months from the date of suspension even, then also, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension period beyond the initial period of three months. 16. At this juncture, the relevant parts of the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020 issued by the State Government in the Personnel Department, which is holding the field, as on date, can be adverted to :- It is therefore directed that all the Senior Most Secretaries of all the Departments shall ensure that the Memorandum of Charges / Charge Sheet is served on the delinquent officer / employee before the expiry of three months of period from the date of issuance of Order of suspension. They shall also ensure that the currency of the 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 within 3 [three] months of suspension, a reasoned Order must be passed for the extension of the suspension, wherever necessary. The officer proposing for suspension shall also ensure that the charges are framed and submitted to the Disciplinary Authority within two weeks from the date of passing order of suspension. After issuance of Memorandum of Charges / Charge-Sheet, the Senior Most Secretaries shall undertake a review within 6 months as regards the desirability to further continue with the suspension order. Senior Most Secretaries will be held responsible if cases of suspension in their respective Departments are not dealt with and reviewed accordingly. 17. From a bare reading of the afore-quoted parts of the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020, it is evident that even after the Memorandum of Charges / Charge-Sheet is served within three months of suspension, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension period, whenever necessary. The Office Memorandum has further mentioned that after issuance of Memorandum of Charges / Charge-Sheet, the senior most secretaries shall undertake a review within a period of six months as regards the desirability to further continue with the Suspension Order. The Office Memorandum has further envisaged that the senior most secretaries would be held responsible if cases of suspension in the respective departments are not dealt with and reviewed accordingly. 18. The submissions advanced on behalf of the official respondents that it is the senior most secretary in the department who is only mandated to undertake a review within a period of six months is found not acceptable. On analysis, it is found that in Ajay Kumar Choudhary [supra] and in the Office Memorandum, it has been clearly set forth that even if the Memorandum of Charges / Charge-Sheet is served within a period of three months from the date of suspension, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension period. On analysis, it is found that in Ajay Kumar Choudhary [supra] and in the Office Memorandum, it has been clearly set forth that even if the Memorandum of Charges / Charge-Sheet is served within a period of three months from the date of suspension, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension period. The senior most secretary of a department may not be the disciplinary authority / appointing authority / controlling authority who has passed the order of suspension and it is the disciplinary authority / appointing authority / controlling authority who passes the Order of Suspension has been cast with the obligation to review the period of suspension within a period of three months. In some situations, the senior-most secretary may be the appellate authority. 19. It is also settled that for extending the currency of an order, the order for extension has to be passed during the currency of the said order. Therefore, an order for extending the period of suspension is not to be passed after the suspension period is over. The period of three months from 15/19.06.2023 expired in September, 2025. The authority who had passed the Order of Suspension, ought to have passed a reasoned order within a period of three months from 15/19.06.2023 to extend the period of suspension. It has been contended that with issuance of a Notification dated 22.09.2023, the Assam Land Records Subordinate Service Rules, 2023 have come into effect. A stand has been taken in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 3 to the effect that as a result, the Disciplinary Authority for Land Record Assistant was changed from jurisdictional District Commissioner to the Director of Land Records, Assam. It has been admitted that in view of such change s, the Show Cause Notice could not be issued within three months from the date of the Suspension Order. Similarly, no review could be done within the said period of three months. 20. Thus, it is clear that no review was done within a period of three months from 15/19.06.2023. The changes occurred in respect of the Disciplinary Authority is not found material as the change occurred on 22.09.2023, which was a period of three months from 15/19.06.2023. 21. Similarly, no review could be done within the said period of three months. 20. Thus, it is clear that no review was done within a period of three months from 15/19.06.2023. The changes occurred in respect of the Disciplinary Authority is not found material as the change occurred on 22.09.2023, which was a period of three months from 15/19.06.2023. 21. In the light of the discussion made above and for the reasons assigned, this Court finds that a right has accrued to the petitioner for seeking a direction for reinstatement on account of the failure on the part of the competent authority to pass a reasoned order within a period of three months from 15/19.06.2023. Therefore, the period of suspension beyond a period of three months from 15/19.06.2023 is found to be invalid in view of the law declared in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary [supra] and implemented by the State Governments through the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020. Any review even if carried out subsequently for extending the currency of the suspension period pursuant after expiry of a period of three months from 15/19.06.2023 would be of no consequence. 22. The Division Bench in Rakibuddin Ahmed [supra] has noticed that the decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary [supra] was with regard to a case where suspension order was issued pending drawal of disciplinary proceeding, which is akin to a suspension order passed under Rule 6[1][a] of the 1964 Rules, and not a case of deemed suspension which goes into effect under Rule 6[2] of the 1964 Rules. The Division Bench in Rakibuddin Ahmed [supra] has held that the principles laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary [supra] cannot be restricted to an order of suspension issued only in contemplation of drawal of disciplinary proceeding and not for deemed suspension. Examining the issue from the perspective of consequence and effect of suspension, the Division Bench has observed that the consequence and effect of suspension are same in both the cases and therefore, it is incumbent on the Department to make periodic review within a period of three months to decide whether the suspension period is required to be extended or not by assigning reasons. In view of the decisions in Rakibuddin Ahmed [supra], the principle laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary [supra] is found applicable to both for matters of suspension issued both under Rule 6[1][a] and Rule 6[2] of the 1964 Rules. In view of such position, the decision in Sudhir Kr. Paul vs. The State of Assam and others , placed by Mr. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate does not require any discussion. 23. A Division Bench in Chubanungsang Imchen [supra] has observed as under : 15. The State Government definitely has the power, authority and jurisdiction to keep a Government servant under suspension pending drawal of disciplinary proceeding or during the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding or during the pendency of a criminal investigation / inquiry / trial. The object of placing a Government servant under suspension is to keep him away from an influential position wherefrom he can interfere with the conduct of the disciplinary proceeding, pending or contemplated, or criminal investigation / inquiry / trial so as to prevent him from hampering in the process of collection of evidence or from tempering with the evidence, in any manner, or where, having regard to the nature of charges / allegations against him, the competent authority is of the opinion that it would be unsafe to continue to vest in him the powers of the post the Government servant is occupying. It is for the competent authority to consider all these aspects at the time of placing the Government servant under suspension and also during the period subsequent to suspension for keeping him under suspension. At the same time, on the other hand, the placement of a Government servant under suspension for a prolonged period unduly would change the colour of measure taken to place the public servant under suspension with the afore-stated objectives, into a measure of punishment. It has been emphasized therefore, time and again, that the matter of suspension as well as the period of suspension should also be considered from the perspectives of consequences and effects emanating therefrom. It has been emphasized therefore, time and again, that the matter of suspension as well as the period of suspension should also be considered from the perspectives of consequences and effects emanating therefrom. Having considered the principle laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary [supra] regarding periodical review for the purpose of extension of the period of suspension, we are of the considered opinion that the proposition is also applicable in a case, like the cases in hand, where a public servant is placed under suspension when a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial and no review of the necessity of keeping him under suspension for any further period or otherwise has been made even after submission of a charge-sheet in the criminal case. 24. From the above two decisions of the Division Bench, the position regarding requirement to review a suspension order, whether it is passed under Rule 6[1][a] or under Rule 6[2] of the 1964 Rules, is the same. 25. In Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation [supra], the respondent-delinquent came to be placed under suspension by an Order dated 18.06.2018 after registration of a criminal case under Sections 7 , 8, 13[1][d] along with Section 13 [2] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 14.06.2018 and his arrest. The respondent continued to be in custody till 17.06.2018. The authorities in the appellant Municipal Corporation decided to initiate and hold a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent and the respondent was called upon to appear before the Inquiry Officer on an appointed day. But, the respondent chose not to participate in the disciplinary proceeding and instead, he preferred a writ petition before the jurisdictional High Court on 21.02.2020 seeking setting aside of the suspension order as well as the resolutions taken by the appellant Municipal Corporation for initiating and holding the disciplinary proceeding against him. The jurisdictional High Court, by a Judgment dated 06.04.2021, allowed the writ petition. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant Municipal Corporation preferred then appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the nature of challenges made by the respondent before the High Court. It was contended on behalf of the appellant Municipal Corporation that the High Court had grossly erred in holding that the respondent was an employee of the State Government and therefore, it was only the State Government who had powers to suspend him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the nature of challenges made by the respondent before the High Court. It was contended on behalf of the appellant Municipal Corporation that the High Court had grossly erred in holding that the respondent was an employee of the State Government and therefore, it was only the State Government who had powers to suspend him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the relevant statutory provisions, came to a finding that the High Court had totally erred in setting aside the suspension and the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the respondent. The suspension order was found to have been passed by the competent Authority empowered under the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. 25.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation [supra] has further observed that the respondent was prima facie found involved in a serious misconduct. It was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent referred to the decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhury [supra] to urge on the matter of prolonged suspension of the respondent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has not found applicability of the principles laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhury [supra] to the delinquent despite his prolonged suspension solely for the fact that it was the respondent who made the challenge to the suspension order and the disciplinary proceeding on the ground of incompetency on the part of the authorities in the appellant Municipal Corporation and therefore, the respondent cannot be permitted to take benefit of his own wrong. The respondent did not himself participate in the disciplinary proceeding so initiated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had, therefore, observed that the issue of prolonged suspension will be taken care of if a direction is made to complete the disciplinary proceeding or within a stipulated period with continuation of the suspension period till then. Having regard to the fact situation obtaining in the case of Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation [supra] qua the factual metrics obtaining in the case in hand, this Court is of a considered view that the decision in Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation [supra] is not applicable in the case in hand. 26. In view of the afore-stated proposition of law regarding requirement of reviewing an order of suspension, the decision in Pradip Kalita [supra] is not discussed. 27. 26. In view of the afore-stated proposition of law regarding requirement of reviewing an order of suspension, the decision in Pradip Kalita [supra] is not discussed. 27. The Order of Suspension passed in respect of the petitioner not having been reviewed in terms of the direction passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary [supra] and the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020, this Court is of the clear view that the same has lost its force and accordingly, the same cannot be said to be in currency any further. Consequently, the petitioner is required to be reinstated in service. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent authorities shall reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of fifteen days from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner at the office of the respondent no. 3. 28. If the petitioner has only been paid subsistence allowance at 50% till date and not at 75% for the period for which the petitioner is entitled during the period of suspension then the respondent authorities shall initiate and complete the process for granting subsistence allowance to the petitioner at 50%/75% within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. 29. It is observed that above direction for reinstatement of the petitioner would not come in the way of the Disciplinary Authority to take its decision on the Inquiry Report and in finalizing the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority while finalizing the disciplinary proceeding, shall also take a final decision as regards entitlement of the petitioner for pay and allowance during the suspension period. 30. If the respondent authorities find that the continuation of the petitioner at the present place of posting would not be in the best interest of administration, it is observed, following the observations made in Ajay Kumar Choudhary [supra] in paragraph 21, that the respondent authorities will be at liberty to transfer the petitioner to a place so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may like to misuse for obstructing the investigation, if any, against him. In other words, the respondent authorities are to reinstate the petitioner and thereafter, are also at liberty to transfer him to a place to keep him out of mischief’s range. 31. In other words, the respondent authorities are to reinstate the petitioner and thereafter, are also at liberty to transfer him to a place to keep him out of mischief’s range. 31. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.