Ajit Borthakur, J.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order No. DoP-71/2016, dated 13.01.2017, issued by the respondent No. 2/the Commissioner (Printing & Stationary), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and to direct the respondents to release the full arrear amount of salary, allowances and all other financial benefits due to the petitioner, during the period of his suspension from service, w.e.f. 10.11.2015 to 13.01.2017.

2. The Director, Information, Public Relations & Printing (IPR & P), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, by order No. IPR (Ptg)7/2009, dated 22.08.2005, placed the petitioner, who was working as Bindery Attendant at Govt. Printing Press, under suspension for his detention in custody w.e.f. 10.08.2005, for more than 48 (forty eight) hours, in connection with Itanagar P.S. Case No. 193/2005, in terms of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short 'CCS Rules'). After release on bail, the petitioner submitted petition to the authority to revoke his suspension order and allow him to join in his duty, but the Director, IPR & P, Arunachal Pradesh vide his reply, dated 21.10.2008, intimated him that the suspension order can be taken up only after disposal of the criminal case, which is pending in the Sessions Court and clearance received from the Police authority. Being aggrieved, the petitioner issued a Legal Notice, dated 19.04.2016, to the respondent No. 2/the Commissioner (Printing & Publication), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and the respondent No. 3/the Director, Department of Printing & Publication, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh praying for the reliefs afore stated, which was not responded. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved a Writ petition, being WP (C) No. 660 (AP) 2016, challenging the legality of his suspension for an indefinite period. After receipt of notice in the said writ proceeding, the respondent No. 2 issued order No. DoP-71/2016, dated 13.01.2017, whereby the petitioner's suspension order was revoked and accordingly, reinstated in service. The aforesaid order was immediately followed by another order No. DoP-71/2016, dated 13.01.2017, intimating him that the salary for the suspension period will be decided as per the final decision of the Court in the criminal case, being Itanagar P.S. Case No. 193/2005 under Sections 395/397/109/120B/121/123 IPC read with Section 25(a)(1)/27 of the Arms Act and Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

3. The petitioner has contended that even after expiry of 90 days, on 10.11.2005, the respondent authorities had kept the petitioner under suspension and deprived him of salary and other financial benefits indefinitely till date, in contravention of the CCS Rules, 1965.

4. Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondent authority had neither drawn up any disciplinary proceedings, although placed under suspension w.e.f. 10.08.2005 till revoked by order, dated 13.01.2017, in connection with a criminal case, where his brother was, in fact, allegedly involved and trial of the case is going on, that is, for unjustified reason nor reviewed the suspension order, within the prescribed 90 days period. The petitioner being a government servant is entitled to full pay and allowances for the said period of suspension. Mr. Tara further submits that the respondent authority did not even give the petitioner the reasonable opportunity of hearing. Therefore, Mr. Tara also submits that placing the petitioner under suspension for an indefinite period, without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing and without drawing up disciplinary j proceeding against him. as well as depriving him of salary and other financial benefits for the aforesaid period, making further, the same subject to the outcome in the criminal case, is wholly illegal. Mr. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied