The main legal point established in the judgment is that the extension of suspension must be supported by reasons as mandated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and the lack of reasons for the extension of suspension rendered the action of the authority in keeping the petitioner under suspension unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y. Riram learned Govt. Advocate for the State of Arunachal Pradesh representing all the respondents.

2. The brief case of the petitioner is that while the petitioner was posted as In-Charge Extra-Assistant Commissioner at Diyun Circle under Bordumsa Sub-Division in the Changlang District of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the petitioner was placed on suspension in exercise of power conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, (in short CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965) vide Memorandum dated 22.11.2022 on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings is being contemplated against the petitioner. Thereafter a Memorandum of Charge dated 13.01.2023 was served upon the petitioner with the imputation of charge that while the petitioner was functioning as i/c Extra Assistant Commissioner, Diyun, Channgland District had engaged one Shri Robin Chakma as MTS in the office of the EAC, Diyun since June, 2021 without any authority and permission from the government. Consequent to the issuance of Memorandum dated 13.01.2023, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 30.01.2023 and the petitioner was expecting that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner in terms of the memorandum dated 13.01.2023 would be held, however, no departmental proceedings has been held till and instead the respondent No. 2 issued order dated 16.02.2023 and 21.05.2023 in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 10(6) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by which the suspension period of the petitioner was mechanically extended for a further period of 90 days each without assigning any reasons as to why the suspension period of the petitioner was required to be extended. Being aggrieved, this writ petition is filed before this Court.

3. The basic ground of such challenge is that though memorandum of charge has been framed against the petitioner however, no departmental proceeding has been initiated till date by appointing any Enquiry Officer, neither the employer has proceeded after filing of reply by the petitioner to the charge-sheet and the petitioner is put under prolonged suspension which is not sustainable under law as declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary vs. Union of India and Another, (2015) 7 SCC 291.

4. It is the further contention of the petitioner that though the period of suspension has been extended after purported review, however, such review is not supported by any reason and the affidavit filed by the respondent authorities also do not disclose any reason for reviewing the order of suspension and extending the same and therefore, such exercise is in derogation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Kr. Choudhary (supra).

5. The respondent State though has filed an affidavit, however, except stating that the extension of suspension of the petitioner has been done under the purview of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, considering the exigencies.

6. This Court has given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the materials available on record.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (supra) observed that protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. On the basis of such consideration, the Hon’ble Apex Court mandated the maximum period of three months for continuation of suspension, if memo of charge is not filed within the period of 90 days and also mandated that for recording of reasons for extension of suspension. While mandating the aforesaid, the Hon’ble Apex Court concluded that such mandate shall adequately safeguard the universally recognized principle of human dignity.

8. Coming to the case in hand, the impugned order dated 22.11.2022 reflects that the suspens