ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the second respondent and perused the materials available on record.

2. The petitioner is challenging the order of suspension, dated 20.10.2020, passed by the first respondent.

3. From the averments made in the affidavit and the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is seen that the petitioner is challenging the order of suspension on merits. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the charges mentioned in the order of suspension are not valid for suspending the petitioner from service. It is the further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that prolonged suspension without assigning any reason is contrary to judgment of this Court as well as judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

4. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit denying various averments made in the affidavit. In addition to that, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent further submitted that the chargememo, dated 02.12.2020, was issued based on the inspection report, dated 22.07.2019 and directed the petitioner to submit her explanation. The petitioner did not submit any explanation.

5. The issue of revocation of suspension of an employee is considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs- 21 and 22 of the judgment held as follows:-

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; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any person, or handling records and documents till the stage of his having to prepare his defence. We think this will adequately safeguard the universally recognised principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognise that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interests of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.

22. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the appellant has now been served with a charge-sheet, and, therefore, these directions may not be relevant to him any longer. However, if the appellant is so advised he may challenge his continued suspension in any manner known to law, and this action of the respondents will be subject to judicial review.''

6. In the judgment referred to above, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when an employee is suspended from service pending criminal case or in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, the suspension order cannot be extended beyond three months. If chargesheet or chargememo is not served on the delinquent employee within three months from the date of suspension, the suspension has to be revoked. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served on the delinquent employee, an order by giving valid reason, must be