Page No.# 1/17 GAHC010142212025 2026:GAU-AS:1848 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4411/2025 DIP KUMAR MEDHI S/O- LATE TANKESWAR MEDHI, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF KUSHAL NAGAR, P.O. HAIBARGAON, P.S. SADAR NAGAON, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH DEPARTMENT, SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM 2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH DEPARTMENT SACHIVALAYA ASSAM-CUM INQUIRY OFFICER DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE REGISTRAR SRIMANTA SANKARDEVA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES NARAKASUR HILLTOP BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781032. 4:THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION SRIMANTA SANKARDEVA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES NARAKASUR HILLTOP BHANGAGARH GHY-781032. 5:DEBESWAR BORA Page No.# 2/17 S/O- LATE TULSHI RAM BORA R/O- K.K. BHATTA ROAD CHENIKUTHI P.S. CHANDMARI GHY-781003 DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 6:PULIN KUMAR PEGU READER (UNDER SUSPENSION) OF SWAHID JADAV NATH HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPIPTAL PANJABARI GUWAHATI SON OF LATE AMULYA PEGU PERMANENT RESIDENT OF CHIRAM DEVATTOR P.O. MUDOIBILL P.S. JENGRAIMUKH DIST. MAJULI ASSAM PIN- 785105 AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 9 PRAGATI PATH HOMEOPATHIC COLLEGE ROAD P.O. BAGHARBORI PANJABARI GUWAHATI-781037 DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 7:BISHNUJYOTI DOLEY S/O- MANIRAM DOLEY PERMANENT RESIDENT OF MIGOM DOLUNG LAKHI NEPALI CT P.S. JONAI PIN- 787060 DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM 8:SANJIB SHARMA READER OF SWAHID JADAV NATH HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL PANJABARI GUWAHATI-781037 SON OF LAKHI KANTA SHARMA R/O- NATH NIWAS FLAT NO. 203 2ND FLOOR BLOCK-A ARUNAV PATH LAKHIMINAGAR Page No.# 3/17 GUWAHATI-781006. 9:THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE DISPUR POLICE STATION DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 KAMRUP METRO ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D GOSWAMI, MR. J M GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH, MR. U S BORA(R-7),MR S BORTHAKUR(R-7),MR. A. GAYAN (R5),MR. P K MUNIR (R5),MR N M HAZARIKA (R-8),KAKU GOGOI(R-6),A GOSWAMI (R-6),MR. P P BORTHAKUR(R-6),MR S BORTHAKUR (R-7),MR. U S BORA (R-7) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 09-02-2026 Heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. AG, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel representing respondent No. 6, Ms. U.S. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 and Mr. N.M. Hazarika, learned counsel representing respondent No. 8. 2. As consented to by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is being taken up for final consideration and is being disposed of by the present order. 3. The petitioner in the present proceeding has presented a challenge to a notification dated 05-05-2025 issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Medical Education & Research Department, placing the petitioner under suspension by invoking the provision of Rule 6(1) of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. The Page No.# 4/17 challenge is primarily on the ground of the prolonged suspension ensuing in pursuance to the issuance of the said notification dated 05-05-2025. 4. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under:- The petitioner while functioning as the Principal of the Swahid Jadav Nath Homeopathic Medical College & Hospital, Panjabari, Guwahjati, basing on an allegation of he being involved in allowing a student of the college to bring mobile phone into the examination hall on 23-07-2024 and that the student concerned adopting unfair means, including usage of the said mobile phone in the examination hall, the petitioner came to be placed under suspension vide notification dated 05-05-2025. It was also projected in the said notification dated 05-05-2025, that the statement of the student concerned had revealed that the petitioner had accepted bribe from him, for allowing him to adopt unfair means in the examination. Thereafter, the respondent authorities had issued to the petitioner a show-cause notice dated 18-09-2025 instituting a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice on 29-10-2025. Along with the said show-cause notice, no order extending the period of suspension of the petitioner came to be issued, on a review of the same. Being aggrieved by the protracted suspension occasioning in his case, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 5. Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts as noticed hereinabove has submitted that the respondent authorities after placing the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 05-05-2025 had not instituted any Page No.# 5/17 departmental proceeding against him within the period the suspension, as ordered in the case of the petitioner, was in currency, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary Vs. UoI & Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. He submits that the respondent authorities had not instituted any departmental proceeding against the petitioner within a period of 90 days w.e.f. the date of issuance of the notification dated 05-05-2025 placing the petitioner under suspension. He further submits that although the respondent authorities after institution of the present proceeding had issued to the petitioner a show-cause notice dated 18-09-2025, the same was not accompanied by an order extending the period of suspension of the petitioner. Accordingly, he submits that the order of suspension as ordered in respect of the petitioner vide notification dated 05-05-2025 stands lapsed and accordingly, a direction is required to be issued to the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in his service. 6. Per contra, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Addl. AG, Assam appearing for the respondents submits that the allegations existing against the petitioner are grave in nature and accordingly, reinstatement of the petitioner in his service would not be in the public interest. He submits that although there was a delay in carrying out a review of the order of suspension of the petitioner, the reasons for the delay as occasioning in the matter has been explained in the affidavit filed in the present proceeding by the respondent No. 1. He submits that a perusal of the said reasons as assigned would go to show that there was no deliberate and willful intent on the part of the respondent authorities in continuing to keep the petitioner under suspension without undertaking a review thereof. In the Page No.# 6/17 above premises, Mr. Gogoi submits that this Court would be pleased not to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in his services and would direct that the respondent authorities to expeditiously conclude the departmental proceeding which have now been instituted against the petitioner, herein. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 8. In the present proceedings although the notification, dated 05-05-2025, is under challenge, however, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, tend to be one questioning the prolonged suspension of the petitioner even after a departmental proceeding was so initiated against him. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner after being placed under suspension vide the notification, dated 05-05-2025, was served with a show-cause notice, dated 18-09-2025, i.e. well within a period of 3(three) months from the date of his such suspension. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra), more particularly, in paragraph No. 21, had laid down the law that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond 3(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 extension of the suspension. 10. The law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra), is of 2(two) parts: one, contemplating a situation wherein a Page No.# 7/17 departmental proceeding has not been initiated against the delinquent officer/employee within a period of 3(three) months with effect from the date, such employee was placed under suspension. In such a circumstance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated that the currency of a suspension order shall not extend beyond 3(three) months, if within this period; the memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is not served upon the delinquent officer/ employee. The said directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra) would not have any application in the present proceeding, inasmuch as, the departmental proceeding was admittedly initiated against the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months from the date, he was so placed under suspension. Coming to the second part of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. if the memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of the suspension. This part of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court has to be read in conjunction of the first part i.e. the prescription as made for currency of a suspension order i.e. for a period of 3(three) months. Accordingly, understanding the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the manner as noted- above, it is to be held that if a memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is served upon a delinquent officer/ employee within a period of 3(three) months from the date of his order of suspension; for an extension of the order of suspension, a reasoned order must be so passed. 11. The issue as arising in the present proceeding, also came up for consideration before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prasanta Dutta Vs. State of Assam reported in 2023 (4) GLT 113. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court upon relying Page No.# 8/17 upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra), framed the following issues: “31. In the backdrop of the above submissions, the questions that arises for determination are: (i) Whether a Government servant who has been put under suspension would be entitled to a direction for reinstatement on the basis of the law laid down in Ajay Kumar Chaudhury(supra) even though in the meantime, the Memorandum of charges/charge-sheet have been served upon him? (ii) What is the right of the Government servant if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served? (iii) Whether in the facts of the case, the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement to his services? 12. Thereafter, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, proceeded to draw its conclusions on the said issues. The conclusions as reached by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prasanta Dutta (Supra), being relevant for the adjudication of the issues as arising in the present proceeding, is extracted here-in-below: “32. The points for determination so framed above at Serial Nos. (I) and (II) can be taken up together as they are interlinked in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). For deciding the same, this Court finds it relevant to take into account the facts involved in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). A perusal of paragraph Nos. 1 to 6 would show that the appellant therein was put under suspension on 30.09.2011. The said suspension continued and extended from time to time and it would be apparent from a perusal of the paragraph Nos. 2, 3 and 5. Paragraph No.6 of the said judgment categorically mentions that the charge sheet was expected to be served on the appellant before 12.09.2014. In the backdrop of the above, it is relevant to take note of paragraph Nos. 20, 21 and 22 of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) which are reproduced herein under: “20. It will be useful to recall that prior to 1973 an accused could be detained for continuous and consecutive periods of 15 days, albeit, after judicial scrutiny and supervision. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contains a new proviso Page No.# 9/17 which has the effect of circumscribing the power of the Magistrate to authorise detention of an accused person beyond a period of 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, and beyond a period of 60 days where the investigation relates to any other offence. Drawing support from the observations contained of the Division Bench in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar and more so of the Constitution Bench in Antulay, we are spurred to extrapolate the quintessence of the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC, 1973 to moderate suspension orders in cases of departmental/disciplinary enquiries also. It seems to us that if Parliament considered it necessary that a person be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be continued after the expiry of the similar period especially when a memorandum of charges/charge-sheet has not been served on the suspended person. It is true that the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC postulates personal freedom, but respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also be placed on the same pedestal. 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. Page No.# 10/17 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.” 33. A perusal of the above quoted paragraphs would show that the Supreme Court was spurred to extrapolate the quintessence of proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 to moderate suspension orders in cases of departmental/ disciplinary enquiries. The rationale behind the same was explained by the Supreme Court that if the Parliament consider it necessary that a person to be released from incarceration after the expiry of 90 days even though accused of commission of the most heinous crimes, a fortiori suspension should not be continued after the expiry of the similar period especially when a Memorandum of Charges/charge-sheet has not been served on the suspended person. The concept of right to speedy trial which is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution was engrafted to the departmental proceedings by observing that respect and preservation of human dignity as well as the right to a speedy trial should also be placed on the same pedestal. It is under such circumstances, the Supreme Court observed in paragraph No.21 and issued directions that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months, if within this period, the Memorandum of Charges/charge sheet in not served on the delinquent officer/employee. It was further observed that if the Memorandum of Charges/ charge-sheet was served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. It was also observed that the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension would not be contrary to the interest of justice. The Supreme Court, though in paragraph 21 categorically directed that the currency of the suspension order should not extend beyond 3 (three) months, if within the said period the Memorandum of Charges/charge- sheet was not served on the delinquent officer/employee, but at paragraph 22 in the given facts before the Supreme Court, it was observed that in the meantime as the charge sheet was served upon the Appellant, the directions so made in paragraph No.21 would not be relevant to the appellant any longer and thereby granted the liberty to the appellant therein, if so advised, to challenge his continued suspension in any manner known to law and this action of the respondents would be subject to judicial review. Therefore, the question arises as to what is the right of a Government servant to be reinstated if during the proceedings before the Court, the Memorandum of Charge/Charge Sheet have been served. Page No.# 11/17 34. It is also relevant at this stage to understand that in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12, the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) has detailed out the ignominy faced by a Government servant when put under suspension. Paragraph Nos.11 and 12 of the said judgment in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) are quoted hereinbelow: “11. Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the record, this would render it punitive in nature. Departmental/disciplinary proceedings invariably commence with delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the drawing up of the memorandum of charges, and eventually culminate after even longer delay. 12. Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. The suspended person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of society and the derision of his department, has to endure this excruciation even before he is formally charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is, to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement. Indubitably, the sophist will nimbly counter that our Constitution does not explicitly guarantee either the right to a speedy trial even to the incarcerated, or assume the presumption of innocence to the accused. But we must remember that both these factors are legal ground norms, are inextricable tenets of Common Law Jurisprudence, antedating even the Magna Carta of 1215, which assures that — “We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right.” In similar vein the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” 35. A further perusal of the said judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) would clearly show that the right to speedy trial which is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution was applied in the case of a suspension as well as right to a speedy Departmental Proceedings. It is in that perspective one has to understand that the Supreme Court sought to moderate suspension orders in cases of departmental/disciplinary enquiries also. Page No.# 12/17 …………………………………………………………………………………… 37. This Court further finds it relevant to take into consideration an Office Memorandum bearing No.ABP.13/2018/Pt/35 dated 04.02.2020 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel (B) Department wherein following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) directed all the senior most secretaries of all the departments to ensure that the Memorandum of Charges/charge sheet is served upon the delinquent officer/employee before the expiry of the 3 (three) months from the date of issuance of the order of suspension. It was also stipulated in the said Office Memorandum that the senior most secretaries of all the departments shall also ensure that the currency of the 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. Further to that, it was stipulated that, if the Memorandum of Charges/charge sheet is served within 3 (three) months of suspension, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension, wherever necessary. In order to speed up the Disciplinary Proceedings, the officer proposing for suspension was mandated vide the said Office Memorandum to ensure that the charges are framed and submitted to the disciplinary authority within two weeks from the date of passing of the suspension order. It was further specified that after the issuance of the Memorandum of Charges/charge sheet, the Senior most secretaries shall undertake review within 6 (six) months as regards the desirability to further continue with the suspension order. It was further stipulated that the senior most secretaries would be held responsible if cases of suspension in their respective departments are not dealt with and reviewed accordingly. Further to that, all the departments were directed to submit quarterly return to the Personnel (B) Department with details about the suspension order issued, Memorandum of Charges/charge sheet served upon the delinquent officer/employee and if any extension of suspension period is given etc. The Personnel Department was also directed to compile the reports received from all the departments and place before the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam for a periodical review every 3 months of the last 3 months suspension orders for further necessary action. …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… ………………….......................................................................... 42. The next question which arises for consideration is in respect to the second part of the declaration by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Page No.# 13/17 (supra) to the effect that if the Memorandum of Charges/charge sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of suspension. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Court that at the time of or immediately upon the Memorandum of Charges/charge sheet is served, the Disciplinary Authority is also required to apply its mind as regards the necessity to continue the suspension or not. In such circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority is required to pass a reasoned order as to why the suspension of the delinquent employee is to be continued. This being the mandate of the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution is binding and has to be followed in letter and spirit. It is pertinent herein to note that in the Office Memorandum dated 04.02.2020, the said aspect of the matter is mentioned. However, the authorities are required to enforce the same with all vigor else it would amount to contravention of the law declared by the Supreme Court.” 13. This Court is in respectful agreement with the reasoning as contained in the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prasanta Dutta (Supra). In the case of the Prasanta Dutta (Supra); the Coordinate Bench of this Court having recorded a categorical finding that at the time of issuance of the memorandum of charges and/ or immediately upon the memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is served upon the delinquent, the disciplinary authority is also required to apply its mind as regards the necessity to continue the suspension or not and pass a reasoned order as to why the suspension of the delinquent officer/ employee is to be continued; this being the mandate of law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, is binding and has to be followed in letter and spirit. The implementation of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 21 in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra), in the State, was so done vide issuance of an office memorandum, dated 04-02-2020, issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Personnel(B) Department, wherein, it was mandated that as follows: Page No.# 14/17 “It is therefore directed that all the Senior Most Secretaries of all the Departments shall ensure that the Memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served on the delinquent officer/employee before the expiry of three months of period from the date of issuance of order of suspension. They shall also ensure that the currency of the 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 within 3(three) months of suspension, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension, whenever necessary.” 14. The respondent State having already issued the said office memorandum, dated 04-02-2020, a right accrues to the petitioner, herein, for seeking a direction for his reinstatement in his service on account of the fact that on the date of issuance of the memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet and/or on the date of it being served upon him; a reasoned order as mandated to be so issued in terms of the provisions of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 21 of its decision in Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra) as well as office memorandum, dated 04-02-2020, was not so done, rendering the continuation of the suspension, to be null and void. 15. Having noticed the said decision pertaining to the issue of prolonged suspension and the law declared in the matter in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra) and implemented by the State respondents vide the issuance of the office memorandum, dated 04-02-2020; this Court is of the considered view that the respondent authorities cannot act in violation of the law as laid down in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra) and it being a law declared under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, it would be binding on all concerned in the country. 16. Having noticed the above position; this Court again would like to refer back to the Page No.# 15/17 law as declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra) and contained in the opening lines of paragraph No. 21. For a ready reference; the same is again extracted here-in-below: “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 extension of the suspension.” 17. The law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would therefore mandate that a suspension order being issued; the currency of the same, would not extend 3(three) months if within this period; the memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/ employee. The second part of the law mandates that if the memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is served; a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. The second part of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, cannot be read in isolation and has to be read in conjunction with the first part. Accordingly, it is to be understood that a currency of an order of suspension while not being permissible to be extended beyond 3(three) months from the date of its issue, if a memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/ employee and if a memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is so issued within the period of 3(three) months; the same must necessarily be accompanied with a reasoned order extending the order of suspension. In other words, either, on the date, a memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet is so issued and/ or invariably on the date; the same is served on the delinquent concerned; such memorandum of charges/ charge-sheet must necessarily Page No.# 16/17 be accompanied with a reasoned order extending the suspension of the delinquent. The effect of non-service of such a reasoned order on the delinquent, when the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is so served; would be that the order of suspension would cease to operate and the delinquent officer/ employee, would be required to be reinstated in his service. 18. Applying the conclusions reached hereinabove to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is an admitted position that neither, on the date of issuance of the show-cause notice, dated 18-09-2025, to the petitioner, herein, nor, on the date, it was so served upon him; the respondent authorities had not, on a review, carried-out of the suspension order of the petitioner, issued a reasoned order for the extension of the period of his suspension and served the same on him. Accordingly, applying the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra) in paragraph No. 21 thereof; this Court has no hesitation to hold that the suspension of the petitioner, ceased to have an effect and the same, cannot be said to be in currency after the date, the show-cause notice, dated 18-09-2025, was served upon the petitioner. The subsequent extensions as affected with regard to the period of suspension of the petitioner, in view of the above-noted lacunae, would be of no consequence. Having noticed the above position, this Court holds that the Notification of suspension issued in respect of the petitioner, herein, having become void, on account of noncompliance of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 21 of the Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra) and the office memorandum, dated 04-02-2020; the petitioner is now entitled to be reinstated in his service forthwith. Page No.# 17/17 19. In view of the above discussions, the notification dated 05-05-2025 placing the petitioner under suspension is held to be no longer in currency and accordingly, the petitioner, herein, is directed to be reinstated in service. 20. However, noticing the allegations so levelled against the petitioner and appreciating the fact that his continuation may not be called for against a post of sensitive nature; this Court by relying on the further directions as passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 21 of the Ajay Kr. Choudhary (Supra); directs that the respondent authorities would be free to transfer the petitioner to any other post existing in the Department so as to prevent the petitioner from misusing and/ or obstructing the investigation pending against him. The respondent authorities would also be at liberty to pass such direction(s) with regard to the duties required to be so performed by the petitioner in the matter. 21. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant