J UDGMENT : KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.K. Azad, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5. 2] By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner is assailing the impugned order dated 30.12.2023, passed by the District Commissioner, Bongaigaon, Assam, by which the writ petitioner has been suspended from his post of Lot Mondal of Boitamari Revenue Circle. 3] The brief fact of the case is that in the year 2021, when the petitioner was posted as Lot Mondal of Boitamari Revenue Circle in the district of Bongaigaon, Assam, at that time one lady submitted an application online for NOC in respect of the sale of a plot of land, and the said land was sold to one person, namely Anowar Hussain. In connection with the aforesaid sale of land, in the month of August 2023, one complaint was filed alleging that the said land had been fraudulently sold, and a complaint case being Case No. 29/2023, was registered by the Circle Officer, Boitamari Revenue Circle, wherein all the parties concerned were directed to appear before the Circle Officer. Thereafter, in connection with the aforesaid enquiry, a report was sought from the petitioner, wherein the petitioner, after duly verifying the application form, gave a report in favour of the sale. In connection with the aforesaid, a criminal case was filed on 10.12.2023, being Jogighopa P.S. Case No. 292/2023 under Section 120(B)/420/468/471/34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860. In connection with the aforesaid case, the writ petitioner was arrested on 21.12.2023, and later on he was placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 30.12.2023. 4] It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that despite the expiry of the stipulated 90-day suspension period no review for extension of suspension was done, for which the writ petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed. 5] Mr. 4] It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that despite the expiry of the stipulated 90-day suspension period no review for extension of suspension was done, for which the writ petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed. 5] Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, appearing for the writ petitioner, submits that since the review of the impugned suspension was not done within the currency of the stipulated time period of 90 days, the impugned suspension is bad in law, and the writ petitioner is entitled to be reinstated. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its Secretary and Anr. /b>., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 . He further submits that the co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Diganta Kalita v. The State of Assam and Ors. , in WP(C)/6827/2023, by following the aforesaid principles laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra), has emphasized that even after issuance of a charge-sheet the suspension cannot be carried over without the same being extended by a reasoned order within the stipulated period of 90 days. 6] Per contra, Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5, submits that in the present case the charge- sheet was filed within the currency of the 90-day stipulated time period from the date of the impugned suspension order and further that after issuance of the aforesaid charge-sheet, the respondent reviewed the case of the writ petitioner within six months thereof in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020. In support of her submissions, she relies upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Sudhir Kr Paul v. The State of Assam and Ors. /b>., in WP(C)/5623/2024 . She accordingly submits that the respondents have adhered to the time frame stipulated in the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020 which has been issued in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra). 7] Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, while adopting the arguments advanced by Ms. 7] Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, while adopting the arguments advanced by Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, further submits that during the pendency of the instant writ petition, the disciplinary proceedings have been concluded and the matter is before the disciplinary authorities, but no final order has been passed. He further submits that the writ petitioner in the meantime has also retired. 8] I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the contending parties and have perused the material available on record. I have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar. 9] The admitted facts are that the writ petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 30.12.2023 issued by the District Commissioner, Bongaigaon, Assam, for his alleged involvement in a criminal case. Thereafter, on 01.03.2024, the respondent No.3 issued show-cause notice/charge-sheet under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India, to the writ petitioner. 10] Apt to refer to the said show-cause notice dated 01.03.2024, which read as under: - “ OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER::BONGAIGAON Nm BRS-117/2023/08 Dated, Bongaigaon the 1st March/2024 To, Samsul Hoque, LAM Boitamari Rev. Circle (Under Suspension). Sub: Show cause. You are hereby to show cause under Rule-9 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1964, read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India as to why any of the penalties prescribed in the aforementioned rules should not be imposed upon you. This is based on the following charge outlined in the statement of allegations attached herewith. Whereas you were arrested/detained by Jogighopa Police in connection with PS case no. 293/23 U/S 120(B)/420/468/471/34 IPC & case No. 299/23 U/S 120(B)/409/468/471/34 IPC and subsequently apprehended. You are therefore, charged with, negligence of duty, misconduct and breach of trust which is unbecoming on the part of a Govt. Servant. You should submit your written statement in your defense within 7 (seven) days from the date of this communication, It should also indicate whether you desire to be heard in person and inform the undersigned within the specified period. Servant. You should submit your written statement in your defense within 7 (seven) days from the date of this communication, It should also indicate whether you desire to be heard in person and inform the undersigned within the specified period. If the disciplinary authority decides to appoint an inquiry officer to investigate the charges, you will be permitted to present your case if you so choose with the assistance of any other government servant designated by the disciplinary authority. However engaging legal practitioner for this purpose will not be allowed unless the person nominated by the disciplinary authority to present the case in support of the charges before the inquiry authority grants permission. Sd/-In eligible, District Commissioner, Bongaigaon Dated Bongaigaon 1st March / 2024” 11] Reading the aforesaid show-cause notice, it is apparent that in view of the alleged involvement of the writ petitioner in the criminal case, the writ petitioner was charged with negligence of duty, misconduct, and breach of trust, which is allegedly unbecoming on the part of a government servant. Accordingly, he was asked to show-cause by filing a written statement within 7 (seven) days from the date of the issuance of the show-cause notice. It further appears that the 90-day time period as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra) as well as the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020, issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, pursuant to the directions laid down in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra), expired on 29.03.2024. It further appears that the said show- cause notice was served upon the writ petitioner on 01.03.2024, i.e., within the currency of the stipulated 90- day/3 month period from the date of issuance of the suspension order. Though till the expiry of the said 90-day/3 month period there was no review or extension of the impugned suspension order of the writ petitioner; however, the respondent No. 3 by order dated 27.06.2024, extended the period of suspension of the writ petitioner for an additional period of 3 months w.e.f. 21.03.2024 or until further order, by a reasoned order. 12] The short question is thus, whether for not passing a reasoned order for extending the suspension while serving the charge-sheet within the stipulated period of 90 days, the suspension per se is bad in law. 12] The short question is thus, whether for not passing a reasoned order for extending the suspension while serving the charge-sheet within the stipulated period of 90 days, the suspension per se is bad in law. 13] Apt at this juncture to refer to the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020, which read as under: “GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL:::PERSONNEL (B) DISPUR:::GUWAHATI No.ABP.13/2018/pt/35 Dated Dispur, the 4 th February, 2020. OFFICE MEMORANDUM Hon'ble High Court Guwahati in its order dated 10-11-2017 in a series of writ Petitions, the lead case being W.P.(C) No.6465/701/ has directed to issue a notification Indicating the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary-VS-Union of India case to the effect that the Disciplinary Authorities are to strictly comply with the requirement to issue the Memorandum of Charges/Charge Sheet before the expiry of three months from the date of issuance of Order of suspension. 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. However, for those certain categories of employees for whom Disciplinary. Authorities are not the Governor or the Chief Secretary, the concerned Appointing Authority as listed at Schedule in the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 will be held responsible if cases of suspension under their subordinate offices are not dealt with and reviewed accordingly. However, for those certain categories of employees for whom Disciplinary. Authorities are not the Governor or the Chief Secretary, the concerned Appointing Authority as listed at Schedule in the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 will be held responsible if cases of suspension under their subordinate offices are not dealt with and reviewed accordingly. All the departments shall submit quarterly return to the Personnel (B) Department with details about the suspension Order issued, Memorandum of Charges /Charge Sheet served upon the delinquent officer/employee and if any extension of suspension period is given etc. The Personnel Department will compile the reports received from all the departments and place before the undersigned for a periodical review every 3 months of the last 3 months suspension orders for further necessary action. Sd/-(Kumar Sanjay Krishna, IAS) Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam” 14] Reading the Office Memorandum, which has been issued as per the direction of the co-ordinate bench of this court by the judgment & order dated 30.11.2017 in a series of writ petitions, the leading case being WP(C) No. 6465/2017, and as per the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra) , it appears that strict instruction has been issued to all the departments to comply with the requirement to issue the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet before the expiry of three months from the date of issuance of the order of suspension. It further appears that all the senior-most secretaries of all the departments were directed to ensure that the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is served on the delinquent officer/employee before the expiry of three months from the date of issuance of the order of suspension. It further appears that they were further directed to ensure that the currency of the suspension order should not extend beyond 3 (three) months if, within this period, the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee. It further appears that they were further directed that if the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet is served within 3 months of suspension, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension, whenever necessary. It further appears that they were also directed that the officer proposing for suspension shall also ensure that the charges are framed and submitted to the Disciplinary Authority within 2 (two) weeks from the date of passing the order of suspension. It further appears that they were also directed that the officer proposing for suspension shall also ensure that the charges are framed and submitted to the Disciplinary Authority within 2 (two) weeks from the date of passing the order of suspension. It further appears that after the issuance of the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet, the senior- most secretaries shall undertake a review within 6 (six) months as regards the desirability of further continuing with the suspension order. Apt at this juncture to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra) , wherein the Apex Court has held as 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/chargesheet 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 recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the 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. 22. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the appellant has now been served with a charge-sheet, and, therefore, these directions may not be relevant to him any longer. 22. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the appellant has now been served with a charge-sheet, and, therefore, these directions may not be relevant to him any longer. However, if the appellant is so advised he may challenge his continued suspension in any manner known to law, and this action of the respondents will be subject to judicial review.” 15] Reading the aforesaid judgment, it appears that the Apex Court has emphasized that even after issuance of a charge-sheet during the currency of the stipulated period of 90 days, the suspension cannot be carried over beyond the expiry of the said stipulated period without the same being extended by a reasoned order. As stated above, the State respondent, by issuing the said Office Memorandum, has clarified that after serving the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-Sheet during the currency of the stipulated period of 3 months of suspension, the senior most-secretaries shall undertake a review within 6 months as regards the desirability of further continuing with the suspension order. Hence, the suspension cannot be carried over beyond the expiry of the stipulated period of suspension despite the issuance of the charge-sheet during the currency of the stipulated period, unless the same is extended by a reasoned order. It appears that the State respondents have provided in the said Office Memorandum that suspension cannot be carried over after the expiry of the stipulated period of 3 months without the same being extended by a reasoned order. Hence, the said Office Memorandum appears to be in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra). It is worthwhile to mention that the said Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020 is not under challenge before this court in the present proceedings. 16] In the present case, admittedly, the charge- sheet/show-cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner within the currency of the 3 (three) month period. It appears that thereafter, within the 6 (six) month period as stipulated in the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020, the suspension of the writ petitioner was reviewed and was further extended for an additional period of 3 (three) months w.e.f. 21.03.2024. Therefore, the impugned suspension appears to be inconformity with the time frame laid down by the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020 and ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra). Therefore, the impugned suspension appears to be inconformity with the time frame laid down by the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020 and ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra). 17] Apt at this stage to refer to the decision of the co- ordinate bench, passed in Sudhir Kr Paul (supra) on 12.06.2025, wherein, in similarly situated facts, the co- ordinate bench of this court did not interfere with the order of the suspension and/or extension as the respondents therein have followed the timeline and the procedure prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020. 18] Relevant paragraphs of the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Sudhir Kr Paul (supra) read as under: “11. A perusal of the OM dated 04.02.2020 extracted above reveals that Memo of Charges/Charge-sheet is required to be issued before expiry of 3 (three) months from the date of issuance of the suspension order. This Office Memorandum No. ABP.13/2018/Pt./35 dated 04.02.2020 is not under challenge in the present proceeding. This OM also appears to have not been brought to the notice of this Court and considered in Ajit Sonowal (supra). 12. Be that as it may, in Ajit Sonowal (supra), while ultimately rejecting the contentions of the appellants- State held that an order of suspension requires periodic review as mandated in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) and Dipak Mali (supra) and which view was considered and followed in Rekibuddin Ahmed vs. State of Assam in WP(C) No. 3218/2019, wherein while the Division Bench of this Court declined to accept such contentions of the appellants, however, held that Rule 6 (1-A) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, permits the authorities to place an employee under suspension when Disciplinary Proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending and considering the fact that the Disciplinary Proceedings has, in the meantime, been initiated by the respondents therein, the Division Bench while disposing of the appeal made it clear that the order passed in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) would not come in the way of the Disciplinary Authority from exercising jurisdiction under Rule 6 (1) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 and issue a fresh order of suspension, if so advised. 13. Coming to the present proceedings, it is evident that the petitioner was suspended on 14.12.2023 with effect from 11.12.2023. 13. Coming to the present proceedings, it is evident that the petitioner was suspended on 14.12.2023 with effect from 11.12.2023. Before expiry of 3 (three) months, the Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated by issuance of a show-cause notice dated 01.03.2024. Subsequently, the review of suspension was also undertaken on 20.06.2024, 02.09.2024 and 10.12.2024 which was also within a period of 6 (six) months from the earlier order passed. The fact remains that the Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated within a period of 3 (three) months in terms of the Office Memorandum No. ABP.13/2018/Pt./35 dated 04.02.2020 and the petitioner has urged before the Court that such action of the respondents is violative of the direction contained in the judgment rendered in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) and Dipak Mali (supra) which followed by the Ajit Sonowal (supra), Mirgen Haloi (supra), Rekibuddin Ahmed (supra), whether the OM dated 04.02.2020 can be held to be implied with overruled by this Court is a question which need not detain this Court at this stage and the same is left open to be decided in an appropriate proceedings. There is no dispute on facts in the present proceedings that pursuant to the order of suspension issued, the show-cause notice has been served on the writ petitioner and the Departmental Proceedings have been initiated and further as submitted by the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, during the course of the hearing, the Departmental Proceedings have been concluded and the matter is presently before the Disciplinary Authority for necessary orders. In that view of the matter, this Court while respectfully agreed to the ratio laid down in the judgments cited and discussed above, however, declines to interfere with the suspension order issued by the concerned Authority. The respondent Authorities, however, shall ensure that the Disciplinary Authority passes appropriate orders in the Departmental Proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner on the basis of the enquiry report stated to have been submitted by the Enquiry Officer and any such order that is passed by the Disciplinary Authority shall be served on the petitioner. While passing such appropriate orders, the respondents authority will also reconsider the question of continuing the petitioner under suspension by passing such appropriate orders as permitted under the law. 14. While passing such appropriate orders, the respondents authority will also reconsider the question of continuing the petitioner under suspension by passing such appropriate orders as permitted under the law. 14. Even in the judgment of the Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) while the Apex Court laid down the procedure of reviewed of the suspension order within 3 (three) month if the memorandum of charges or charge sheet is not served to the delinquent officer, however, on the facts of the case in view of the chargesheet having been served on the delinquent officer, the directions were held to be not relevant to the petitioner/appellant therein. It is to be noted herein that the question as to whether the Disciplinary Authority would be entitled to place an employee under prolonged suspension without reviewing the order of suspension came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra). The findings of the Apex Court in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the said decision would be relevant in the facts of this case and are, therefore, extracted below :- ‘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 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' and more so of the Constitution Bench in Antulay, 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) CrPC 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/chargesheet 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 recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set timelimits 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.’ 15. Accordingly, in view of the discussions above, this Court is of the considered view that the facts do not call for any interference with the order of suspension dated 14.12.2023 and/or extension/ review of the suspension order as the respondents have followed the timeline and the procedure prescribed in the Office Memorandum No. ABP.13/2018/Pt./35 dated 04.02.2020. What is however noticed, during the course of the hearing, is that the Disciplinary Proceedings have been concluded and the matter is before the Disciplinary Authorities but no final order has been passed. What is however noticed, during the course of the hearing, is that the Disciplinary Proceedings have been concluded and the matter is before the Disciplinary Authorities but no final order has been passed. Accordingly, this Court directs the respondents authorities to expeditiously complete the Disciplinary Proceedings within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and pass necessary orders thereon. In the event, the charges made against the petitioner are found to be unsustainable during the Disciplinary Proceedings, then the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with immediate effect and the period of suspension will be treated as period of duty.” 19] Reading of the aforesaid judgment vis-à-vis the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Sudhir Kr Paul (Supra), and I am of the unhesitant view that the same squarely covers the facts of the present case. 20] As regards the submission of Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, that the charge-sheet ought to have stated the reason for extension of the suspension in terms of paragraph 21 of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra), and the decision of the co- ordinate bench of this court in Diganta Kalita (supra), this court finds that since the charge-sheet in the instant case has been served to the writ petitioner during the currency of the stipulated period of 3 months/90 days from the date of issuance of order of suspension and the respondent authorities having reviewed the case of the writ petitioner within 6 (six) months from the date of issuance of the charge- sheet and extended thereof the order of suspension, the same are not applicable in the context of the facts and circumstances of the present case. The argument of the learned senior counsel that a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension along with the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet as per the ratio laid down in the aforesaid two precedents is totally misplaced inasmuch as in the event a charge-sheet is served during the currency of the stipulated suspension period, the occasion for reviewing the suspension order and/or extension thereof would not arise. It is only after the issuance of the charge- sheet; if the currency of the stipulated 90-day period of a suspension order expires, then a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the same. As noted above, in any case, the state government has taken care of the aforesaid requirement of passing a reasoned order after reviewing the case of the suspended delinquent upon expiry of the stipulated time period of suspension even when a charge- sheet is filed during the currency of the stipulated time period by issuing the said Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020. 21] Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, especially keeping in mind that the impugned suspension is carried over after issuance of a charge-sheet with extension by a reasoned order, I find that the impugned suspension is legal and valid. It is worthwhile to mention that the disciplinary proceedings have been concluded, but the disciplinary authority is yet to pass the final order. That apart, it is admitted that the writ petitioner during the pendency of the instant writ proceedings has also retired from service. 22] Accordingly, it is held that the impugned suspension order dated 30.12.2023 does not call for any interference from this court. Hence, the challenge to the impugned suspension order dated 30.12.2023 fails. However, the respondent authorities are directed to expeditiously complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and pass the necessary order thereon. In the event the charges made against the writ petitioner are found to be unsustainable during the disciplinary proceedings, then the period of suspension will be treated as a period on duty till the date of his retirement, and all the benefits, including the retirement benefits as due to the writ petitioner, shall be paid to him in accordance with law. 23] With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.