JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 8695/2018, Ms. S. Borpatra Gohain, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 711/2019, and Mr. SK. S.N. Mohammad, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 6842/2018.

2. These three petitions have been clubbed together in view of the common issues raised about the validity of continued suspension of the petitioners.

3. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 6842/2018, Sri Atfur Rahman, was placed under suspension vide order dated 26.6.2018, by stating that he was arrested on 24.5.2018 and detained in police custody and accordingly, he shall be deemed to have been suspended from the date of detention, i.e., 24.5.2018 under rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964.

4. In WP(C) No. 8695/2018, the petitioner, Sri Dhiraj Kumar Das, Forest Grade-I was placed under suspension vide order dated 12.9.2018 pending drawal of departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding by the competent authority or both with immediate effect from the date of his arrest on 11.9.2018 until further orders.

5. In WP(C) No. 711/2019, the petitioner, Sri Manas Kamal Gogoi (U.D.A), Auditor, Tengakhata Rural Roads Sub-Division under PWD Dibrugarh Rural Road Division was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.08.2017 stating that the petitioner was arrested on 21.08.2017 and a disciplinary proceeding had been contemplated against him and accordingly, in exercise of power conferred under rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, the petitioner is deemed to have been placed under suspension with effect from date of his detention pending drawal of departmental proceeding against him.

6. From the above, what can be seen is that the petitioners were suspended either in contemplation of a departmental proceeding or deemed to have been suspended after being arrested in certain criminal cases.

7. The common issue raised by the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions is that, as held by the hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, and the other decisions of this court rendered by relying on the aforesaid case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra), as there was no review of the suspension orders within ninety days from the date of suspension, the continued suspension of the petitioners would be not permissible, and accordingly, the suspension orders are liable to be set aside and the petitioners may be directed to be reinstated in service.

8. In addition to the aforesaid decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra), learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied on the decisions of this court rendered in WP(C) No. 220/2018 (Vijay Kumar Singh v. State of Assam ) disposed of on 1.01.2018, WP(C) No. 6064/2018, (Brijesh Kumar Rai v. Union of India) disposed of on 28.9.2018, WP(C) No. 2863/2018 disposed of on 26.9.2018.

9. Another decision of the Division Bench of this court in WA No. 259/2018 disposed of on 12.11.2018, which also relied on the decision of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) was also referred to, which did not interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge setting aside the suspension order, on the ground that no review was held within ninety from the date of the suspension.

10. In all these petitions this court had interfered with and set aside the suspension orders in respect of which no review was held within the period of ninety (90) days in terms of the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra).

11. As evident from the above, since Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) was the lead case and reliance was placed heavily on it, by the learned counsel for the petitioners, specifically para 21 of the said decision, the same is reproduced herein below:

“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/Charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; i