JUDGMENT :

Robin Phukan, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Shri Tamiyo Tatak, put to challenge the Order No. PERS-15/93/39, dated 19.07.2021, issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar and signed by Secretary (personnel) to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, under Sub-Rule (6) of Rule-10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. It is to be mentioned here that, vide impugned order, the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh has extended the period of suspension of the petitioner for a further period of 90 days w.e.f. 20.07.2021 to 17.10.2021, in exercise of powers conferred under the Rule--10(6) of the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. It is also to be mentioned here that, the petitioner was also deemed to be suspended with effect from the date of detention, i.e. 21.04.2021, in terms of Sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule -10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1965, vide order dated 30.04.2021, Memo No. PERS-15/93/689 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh and signed by Secretary (personnel) to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present writ petition is briefly stated as under :-

"The petitioner was arrested in connection with SIC(VIG), P.S. Case No. 03/2021, under sections 120(B)/409/468/471 of the IPC, read with section 13(1)(c) (d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar issued an order dated 30.04.2021, which was signed by the Secretary (Personnel), Government of Arunachal Pradesh on 05.05.2021, by which the petitioner was deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of the detention i.e., 21.04.2021, in terms of Sub-rule (2) of Rule -10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and shall remained under suspension on and until further order. Thereafter, the petitioner was expecting that the departmental proceedings will be initiated against him and memorandum of charges would be served upon him within a period of 90 days in terms of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in 2015 (7) SCC 291. But, the respondent authority, instead of serving any memorandum of charges to the petitioner, extended his suspension period, vide order No. PERS-15/93/39, issued on 19.07.2021, by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, and it was signed by the Secretary (Personal) to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar on 19.07.2021, and by the said order, suspension period of petitioner was extended for a further, period of 90 days, w.e.f. 20.07.2021 to 17.10.2021, in exercise of powers conferred under the Rule-10(6) of the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The contentions of the petitioner is that, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Verses Union of India (Supra) the currency of suspension order could not have been extended beyond 3(three) months, and in the event of failing to serve the memorandum of charges to the delinquent Officer within this period, then a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of suspension, but in the case in hand the respondent authorities in the impugned order dated 19.07.2021, did not assign such reasons and the same is against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondent.

4. Mr. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was place under suspension, vide order dated 30.04.2021, but the respondent authority has failed to serve the memorandum of charges to the petitioner within the period of 90(ninety) days, and ex