WP(C) 2452/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR UJJAL BHUYAN Heard Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. V. L. Singh, learned State counsel appearing for all the respondents. By this application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20-4-2 002 whereby he was placed under suspension with immediate effect pending drawal of departmental proceeding against him. The petitioner is an Upper Division Assiatant in the Directorate of Diar y Development under the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department, Govt. of Ass am. After being placed under suspension, a show cause notice dated 11-9-2002 was issued to the petitioner. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his wri tten statement dated 26-11-2002. The petitioner has submitted that the departmen tal proceeding has not proceeded at all though on 2-4-2005 the Inquiry Officer w as appointed and he was directed to complete the departmental inquiry by 30-5-20 05. The respondent No. 2, i.e. the Director of Diary Development, Govt. of A ssam has filed his affidavit-in-opposition. The Director has stated in his affid avit that the relevant documents were seized by the Investigating Agency in the related criminal case. However, the said Director had not been able to place an ything on record regarding the further progress or completion of the department al proceeding. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that continuation of the suspension for such a long period is without any justification and the s ame requires interference by this court. He further submits that similarly place d persons in the same Directorate and in the Department have been reinstated in service. He further submits that the suspension order may be set aside and the petitioner may be reinstated in service. In support of his submission, Mr. Saiki a, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the cas e of Manasaranjan Das Vrs. State of Orissa and Ors., reported in 1973 (2) S.L.R 553. Mr. Singh, learned State counsel on the other hand submits that the alle gations against the petitioner are quite serious which requires to be thoroughl y inquired into by the disciplinary authority. I have heard the learned counsels for both the sides. Normally this cour t would have been very reluctant to interfere with an order of suspension. But i n the instant case, 10(ten) long years have elapsed since the suspension order w as issued. The suspension though might have been justified when the order was is sued initially, the same has now become quite oppressive and in my opinion has b ecome counter productive. A Government servant cannot be placed under suspensio n for an indefinite period. Therefore, considering the situation which has arise n from the continued suspension of the petitioner for almost 10(ten) years, I co nsider it to be a fit case to interfere. Accordingly, the order of suspension da ted 20-4-2002 is set aside. The petitioner be reinstated in service immediately. Such reinstatement shall be subject to the departmental proceeding pending agai nst the petitioner. The disciplinary authority is also directed to complete the departmental proceeding as early as possible considering the imminent superannua tion of the petitioner. This disposes of the writ petition.