JUDGMENT : MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J. Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.06.2024 passed by the respondent No. 1, by which the suspension order dated 14.10.2023 of the petitioner has been extended by another three months. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the order extending the suspension of the petitioner is not a reasoned order, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India , reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 . He accordingly submits that the impugned order dated 08.06.2024 should be set aside and the petitioner should be reinstated into service as Block Elementary Education Officer (BEEO), Chaiduar Education Block, Gohpur, Biswanath district. 3. Mr. P. K. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department submits that as there had been a review of the suspension order of the petitioner and as there has been an extension of the same due to proper reasons, there is no ground for setting aside the impugned order extending the petitioner’s suspension period. 4. Mr. P. K. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department has also submitted another order dated 18.12.2024 issued by the respondent No. 1, wherein the suspension period of the petitioner has been again extended for an additional three months, on the basis of the suspension review committee meeting held on 10.12.2024. 5. I have heard the counsels for the parties. 6. In Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) , the Supreme Court had held that the suspension order of a delinquent officer/employee should not extend beyond three months, if within this period, the memorandum of charges/charge sheet was not served upon the delinquent officer/employee. If the memorandum of charges/charge sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension order. 7. The facts of the case is that the petitioner was arrested on 06.10.2023 in connection with Anti-Corruption PS Case No. 80/2023 under Section 7(a) of the PC Act, 1988. The petitioner was suspended from service, vide order dated 14.10.2023 in terms of Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1964, w.e.f., 06.10.2023. 7. The facts of the case is that the petitioner was arrested on 06.10.2023 in connection with Anti-Corruption PS Case No. 80/2023 under Section 7(a) of the PC Act, 1988. The petitioner was suspended from service, vide order dated 14.10.2023 in terms of Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 6 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1964, w.e.f., 06.10.2023. The respondent No. 1 thereafter issued a show-cause notice dated 08.12.2023 to the petitioner under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence/reply on 25.01.2024. The petitioner was released on bail on 07.11.2023, which was informed to the respondents on 04.12.2023. 8. In the present case, the charge sheet having been filed within three months, the only requirement of the State respondents was to conduct a review of the suspension, to ascertain whether the suspension order was to be extended and as to whether there were reasonable grounds to extend the suspension order. The impugned order dated 08.06.2024, by which the initial suspension order of the petitioner has been extended for an additional three months, shows that the petitioner had demanded bribes for doing favours and that the same had caused serious embarrassment to the Department of School Education, besides denting the image of the Department. 9. Para 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 1 is to the effect that after submission of the charge sheet, the suspension order of the petitioner was reviewed by the Suspension Review Committee on 16.03.2024 and the order for extension of the suspension period was issued on 08.06.2024. It is also reflected in para 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition, that the Suspension Review Committee again held a meeting on 07.09.2024, by which the suspension of the petitioner was again extended, vide letter dated 19.09.2024. 10. As has been stated earlier, the only issue raised by the petitioner’s Counsel and which is to be decided, is whether the order dated 08.06.2024, extending the suspension period of the petitioner, was a reasoned order or not. 11. The contents of the order dated 08.06.2024 is reproduced herein below as follows: “Perused : Director of Elementary Education Assam's letter No. ECA-49/2023/3, dtd. 09/10/2023 and Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Assam's letter No.DGVA/RC/2023/8155, dtd. 11. The contents of the order dated 08.06.2024 is reproduced herein below as follows: “Perused : Director of Elementary Education Assam's letter No. ECA-49/2023/3, dtd. 09/10/2023 and Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Assam's letter No.DGVA/RC/2023/8155, dtd. 07/10/2023 Findings : While Shri Hari Prasad Das was serving Block Elementary Education Officer, Chaiduar, under Biswanath District, He was arrested on 06/10/2023 by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Assam Branch in connection with ACB PS Case No:80/2023, U/S 7(a) of PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), alleged that complainant Sri Kiran Pegu, S/o Jugal Pegu, Village-Ukhalachuk, PS-Garmur, Majuli District is an Asstt. Teacher of Kambong Janajati Prathamik Vidyalaya under Chaiduar Block, Biswanath has lodged a complaint in the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Assam that Shri Hari Prasad Das had demanded bribe of Rs. 5000/- from the complainant for approval to convert his temporary posting to permanent on 06/10/2023 while complainant Sri Kiran Pegu went to the BEEO office and met Sri Hari Prasad Das then he demanded bribe of Rs. 7000/- for providing an additional teacher in the school of the complainant. For both purposes, Sri Hari Prasad Das demanded total Rs. 12000/- as bribe from the complainant and on being requested by the complainant Hari Prasad Das reduced the bribe amount to Rs.10,000/-. Sri Hari Prasad Das, Block Elementary Education Officer, Chaiduar under Biswanath District was kept under detention for more than 48 hours since his arrest 1.e. from 06/10/2023 and accordingly the Govt. in Department of School Education, Assam placed him under suspension with immediate effect from the date of arrest 1.e. on 06/10/2023 vide letter No. ECF- 394356/4, dtd. 14/10/2023. Accordingly, Departmental Proceeding was drawn up against Sri Hari Prasad Das vide show cause letter No.ECF-394356/7, dtd. 11/12/2023 and accused officer has submitted the written statement dated 25/01/2024 in his defense. In spite of all evidences as stated in the report of Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Assam, Sri Hari Prasad Das, has denied the charges leveled against him in his written statement. In this connection, an enquiry committee was constituted vide letter No. ECF- 394356/36, dtd. 20/03/2024 to enquire in to the matter. Accordingly, the enquiry committee report is awaited. Decision : It has been decided as per Personnel (B) Departinent OM No. ABP.13/2018/Pt/35, did. 04/02/2020 to examine the matter. In this connection, an enquiry committee was constituted vide letter No. ECF- 394356/36, dtd. 20/03/2024 to enquire in to the matter. Accordingly, the enquiry committee report is awaited. Decision : It has been decided as per Personnel (B) Departinent OM No. ABP.13/2018/Pt/35, did. 04/02/2020 to examine the matter. The said incident under investigation had caused serious embarrassment to the Department of School Education and had dented the image of the Department and therefore pending the ongoing enquiry it is decided to extend the suspension period for an additional three months for further enquiry in respect of Shri Hari Prasad Das, Block Elementary Education Officer, Chaiduar, Biswanath District (under suspension). This decision was made during the Suspension Review Committee meeting held on 16/03/2024 in the office chamber of the Secretary (chaired by Shah Nawaz Choudhury, LAS)” 12. The meaning of the word “reasonable” is basically to the effect that it is fair and sensible. A perusal of the order dated 08.06.2024, by which the petitioner’s suspension period has been extended shows that the authorities had considered the complaint that had been made against the petitioner, which was to the effect that he demanded bribes for giving favourable orders and the same had caused embarrassment to the department of School Education and dented the image of the department. On considering the fact that the Suspension Review Committee had considered the above facts and had thereafter decided to extend the suspension period vide the impugned order dated 08.06.2024, this Court does not find any reason to come to a view that the above order is not reasonable. 13 . In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 08.06.2024. 14 . The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.