JUDGMENT :

1. In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Shri Ennyo Nangkar, has put to challenge the legality and validity of the Order No. LMD-11-11/1/2021, dated 30.09.2021, and the Order No. LMD-11011/1/2021/560, dated 20.01.2022, issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. It is to be noted here that vide the impugned order dated 30.09.2021, the petitioner was suspended from his service w.e.f. 29.09.2021, on being detained in custody for more than 48 (fourty eight) hours in connection with SIC(Vig) P.S. Case No. 03/2021, under Sections 120(B)/409/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(c) & 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, and vide impugned order dated 20.01.2022, the suspension order of the petitioner was extended for further period of 180 days without issuance of Memorandum of Article of Charges.

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

“The petitioner was serving as Director, Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and he was placed under suspension vide Order No.LMD-11-11/1/2021, dated 30.09.2021, by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and signed by the Secretary, Land Management to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, on 04.10.2021, upon his detention in police custody on 29.09.2021 for more than 48 (forty eight) hours in connection with SIC(Vig) P.S. Case No. 03/2021, under Sections 120(B)/409/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code readwith Section 13(1)(c) & 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988, and before his suspension, he was attached with the Office of the respondent No. 1 after registration of the aforementioned case. The aforementioned case was registered in connection with some irregularities, allegedly committed by him in the process of fixation of land revenue and other assets rate against the land acquired for railway project from Ruskin to Murkong Select to Pasighat. After his arrest, he was in jail hajot till 28.10.2021, and thereafter, he was granted bail by this Court. Thereafter, on 12.12.2021, the petitioner filed one representation before the respondent authority for revocation of the suspension order, but the respondent authority did not pay any heed to the same. Subsequently, his suspension order was reviewed on 20.01.2022 and extended the suspension period for another 180 days without initiating departmental proceeding and serving Memorandum of Article of Charges and, as such, the respondent authorities have violated the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, where emphasis is laid for initiation of departmental proceeding within 90 (ninety) days of the currency period of suspension. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition.”

3. I have heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Dabi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Riram, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate representing State respondent No. 1 and Mr. D.Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel, Land Management Department, representing respondent No. 2.

4. Mr. M. Pertin, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 29.09.2021 and the same was reviewed by the respondent authority on 20.01.2022 and extended for another 180 days. Mr. Pertin further submits that within the period of 3 (three) months, as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the respondent authorities has failed to initiate departmental proceeding against him and also failed to furnish Memorandum of Article of Charges against him and as such, extension of the suspension period for another 180 days, is against the principle of natural justice.

5. On the other hand, Mr. D. Kamduk, the learned Standing Counsel, Land Management Department, submits that the Memorandum of Article of Charges had been