Judgment : KARDAK ETE, J. Heard Mr. D. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 2. Challenge made in this petition is to the order of suspension dated 07.02.2024 passed by District Commissioner, Biswanath, whereby, the petitioner has been placed under suspension in connection with Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam Case No. ACB PS Case No. 14/2024 under Section 7 (a) PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) and for a direction to reinstate the petitioner on the ground that even after submission of charge-sheet/memorandum of charges, the petitioner has been continued to be placed under suspension without passing a reasoned order extending the period of suspension. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Lot Mandal in the Office of the Circle Officer, Naduar Revenue Circle, Sootea under the then Sonitpur District (now Biswanath District) on 23.03.2023. He was arrested in connection with ACB PS Case No. 14/2024 under Section 7 (a) PC Act, 1988 on the basis of ejahar filed by one Aliullah Ahmed alleging of accepting Rs.2000/- as bribe. 4. The District Commissioner, Biswanath vide an order dated 07.02.2024, placed the petitioner under suspension under Rule 6(2) of Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 in connection with the ACB PS Case No. 14/2024 under Section 7 (a) PC Act, 1988. The petitioner was granted bail vide order 06.03.2024 and accordingly was released on the same day. The petitioner filed an application before the authority for revocation of his suspension order and to reinstate him in the service on the ground he has been released on bail. 5. The respondent authority issued a show-cause notice dated 27.03.2024 and served the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his reply on 10.04.2024. Thereafter, the departmental proceedings ensued. However, as on today, it has not been brought to its logical conclusion as no order has been passed by the respondent authorities. 6. Mr. D. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although memorandum of charges has been framed against the petitioner, no review or extension of the suspension order of the petitioner has been passed. Even after lapse of many months, no final order has been passed. However, arbitrarily continued to put the petitioner under suspension. 7. 6. Mr. D. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although memorandum of charges has been framed against the petitioner, no review or extension of the suspension order of the petitioner has been passed. Even after lapse of many months, no final order has been passed. However, arbitrarily continued to put the petitioner under suspension. 7. While referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary -vs- Union of India through its Secretary & anr ., reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291 and the judgment and orders passed by this Court relying upon the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, submits that the suspension order dated 07.02.2024 cannot be extended beyond ninety days and even the charge-sheet is filed, the authority cannot continue to put the petitioner under suspension without review or extension order. Even if it is extended, same has to be with reasons. Therefore, he submits that the suspension order dated 07.02.2024 may be set aside and quashed and may direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. 8. Mr. D. Borah, learned State Counsel for the respondents submits that the order of suspension was reviewed and extended periodically. After issuance of the suspension order on 07.02.2024, vide order dated 10.05.2024, the suspension order of the petitioner was reviewed. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.08.2024, it was again reviewed and lastly, vide order dated 18.11.2024, the respondent authority has reviewed and extended the suspension order of the petitioner. The petitioner has been served with a show-cause notice with the charge-sheet/memorandum of charges on 27.03.2024, which is within 90 days and a reasoned order has been passed extending the suspension order of the petitioner, which has been duly communicated to the petitioner. He submits that the proceedings in the departmental enquiry have been completed and an enquiry report is being prepared and as such, the proceedings is in the verge of completion. Therefore, there is no illegality in extending the suspension of the petitioner which has been passed with reasons. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 10 . Therefore, there is no illegality in extending the suspension of the petitioner which has been passed with reasons. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 10 . The law on suspension is well settled and there is hardly any quarrel to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Choudhary (supra) and judgment and orders passed by this Court relying on the said case. 11 . Office memorandum dated 04.02.2020, provides that Memorandum of Charges/charge-sheet must be served on the delinquent officer or employee before the expiry of ninety days from the date of issuance of the order of suspension. It also provides that after issuance of the Memorandum of Charges/Charge-sheet, the authorities will undertake the review within six months as regard to the desirability for further continuance with the suspension order. 12 . In the present case, the petitioner was suspended on 07.02.2024, the day when the petitioner was arrested in connection with the ACB PS Case No. 14/2024 under Section 7 (a) PC Act, 1988. The petitioner was released on bail on 06.03.2024 and the same was intimated to the authority on 19.03.2024. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet/Memorandum of Charges on 27.03.2024 with show-cause notice. The petitioner submitted his reply on 10.04.2024. 13 . The authority reviewed and extended the suspension of the petitioner on 10.05.2024. In view of the above, the authorities have served the Charge- Sheet/Memorandum of Charges to the petitioner and also reviewed and extended the suspension order within ninety days from the date of suspension and intimation. 14 . Thereafter, the departmental proceedings had commenced pursuant to the issuance of the charge-sheet and the enquiry is stated to be concluded. The departmental proceeding is on the verge of completion. It is also noticed that the respondent authorities have reviewed and extended the suspension order periodically, last being vide order dated 18.11.2024 with a reasoned order, which has been duly communicated to the petitioner and acknowledged by him. Thus, in my view, the review and extension of the suspension order of the petitioner appears to be in accordance with the law. 15 . Thus, in my view, the review and extension of the suspension order of the petitioner appears to be in accordance with the law. 15 . In the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that currency of the suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet did not serve on the officer/employee and if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension. 16 . In the present case, as noted above, the petitioner was suspended on 07.02.2024. Before the expiry of three months, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuance of show-cause notice on 27.03.2024 by serving the charge- sheet/memorandum of charges, which is within ninety days and thereafter, disciplinary proceeding had commenced, which is stated to be in the verge of completion. Thereafter, the review of the suspension order was undertaken and extended within a stipulated period of six months from time to time with a reason order in terms of the office memorandum dated 04.02.2020. Thus, in my considered view, there is no illegality in extending the suspension period of the petitioner pending departmental proceedings as the same has been passed in accordance with the relevant Rules and as such, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, no interference is called for. 17 . In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I am of the considered view that there is no illegality with the order of suspension dated 07.02.2024 and subsequent review and extension orders as the same is in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020 and the law laid down. Therefore, interference to the suspension order, review and extension orders is hereby declined. However, considering that the enquiry has already been concluded and the disciplinary proceedings stated to be in the verge of completion, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to complete the proceedings expeditiously. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent authorities to complete the departmental proceedings as expeditiously not later than period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and pass necessary orders. In the event, no charge is established in the departmental proceedings, the petitioner shall be reinstated in the service with immediate effect and the period of suspension shall be treated as on duty. In the event, no charge is established in the departmental proceedings, the petitioner shall be reinstated in the service with immediate effect and the period of suspension shall be treated as on duty. 18. Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. No order as to costs.