ORDER :

SUMAN SHYAM, J.

Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Taba Tagum learned standing counsel, Education Department appearing on behalf of the official respondents.

2. The writ petitioner herein was working as Head Master of Govt. Secondary School, Ngorlung, East Siang District in the State of Arunachal Pradesh when he was placed under suspension vide order dated 18-10-2023 issued by the respondent No. 1, i.e. the Commissioner (Education), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar by invoking powers under Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 on the ground that upon his arrest in connection with a criminal proceeding, the petitioner was detained in custody exceeding 48 hours. Since then, the petitioner is under suspension.

3. The writ petitioner was arrested on 05-10-2022 in connection with CBI PS Case No. RC172022A0009 registered under Sections 406/ 407/ 409/ 120B of IPC read with Section 7/ 8/ 13 of the P.C. Act, 1988.

4. By the order dated 10-01-2023 passed by the Special Judge (PCA), Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh in BA No. 6/2022 in connection with CBI PS Case No. RC172022A0009, the petitioner was released on bail. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him by serving memorandum of charge on 27-01-2023. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order of suspension dated 18-10-2022 has neither been reviewed nor extended by the authorities till date by a reasoned order, as a result of which, serious prejudice has been caused to the interest of the petitioner.

5. By referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhury Vs. UoI through its Secretary & Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 as well as a decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of State of Assam & Anr. Vs. Ajit Sonowal & Ors. reported in 2023 (6) GLT 115, Mr. Tara, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the order of suspension, not having been reviewed on the expiry of 90 days, has automatically lost its force and therefore, the same is liable to be interfered with by this Court on such count alone. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the case of his client is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhury (Supra) as well as the decision of this Court in Ajit Sonowal (Supra) and therefore, the impugned order be quashed and the petitioner be reinstated in service.

6. Mr. T. Tagum, learned standing counsel, Education department has submitted, in his usual fairness, that the impugned order of suspension dated 18-10-2022 had neither been reviewed nor extended and to such extent, he does not dispute the submission of the petitioner’s counsel that this case is covered by the decision in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhury (Supra) and Ajit Sonowal (Supra).

7. In the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhury (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an order of suspension should not extend beyond 03 months if within that period, memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is not served upon the delinquent officer and even if a memorandum of charge is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the period of suspension.

8. Taking note of the law laid down in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhury (Supra) as well as in the case of UoI & Ors. Vs. Dipak Mali reported in (2010) 2 SCC 222, this Court, in the case of Ajit Sonowal (Supra) has held as follows in paragraph 13:-

“13. From careful analysis of the above decisions of the Supreme Court what follows is that unless review is held within 90 days, an order of suspension including one issued due to the detention of an employee in custody for 48 hours, would not survive nor can such an order be granted fresh lease of life by carrying out a review after expiry of the period of 90 days. In view of the law laid down in the case of Dipak Mali (supra) and Ajay Kumar Choudhury (Supra) it is axiomatic that