Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6175 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14956 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vikram Bahadur Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhay Singh Tomar,Adarsh Bhushan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Pursuant to order of this Court dated 24.09.2024, learned standing counsel has filed personal affidavit which is taken on record. 3. As per the affidavit departmental proceeding and criminal case are based upon same facts and circumstances and further order shall be passed after completion of inquiry . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is undisputed that petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 29.06.2020, whereas, charge sheet has been served on 15.03.2022 i.e. much after three months from the date of suspension. He next submitted that in light of judgments passed by Apex Court in the matters of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC suspension order may not continue after completion of 90 days from date of suspension without serving of charge sheet. Apart that he placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Anshu Bharti Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 1 AWC 691 and submitted that prolonged suspension amounts to punishment and such period should also not be continued for indefinite period. Therefore, prolonged suspension is bad and impugned order dated 29.06.2020 is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned standing counsel could not dispute the legal submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Undisputedly, petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 29.06.2020, whereas, charge sheet has been served on 15.03.2022 i.e. much after three months from the date of suspension and further, a long period has passed since the petitioner has been placed under suspension and such prolonged suspension is bad. 8. In light of judgment passed by Apex Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Vs. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC and judgment of this Court in the matter of Anshu Bharti Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 1 AWC 691 continuance of suspension order is punitive in nature. 9. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order dated 26.09.2020 is hereby quashed. Writ petition is allowed. 10. However, this order shall not preclude the respondents to complete the departmental proceeding in accordance with law, if there is no other legal impediment. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 ADY Digitally signed by :- AMAR DEEP YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad