WP(C) 1689/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B K SHARMA Heard Mrs. A Bujarbaruah, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B Ch oudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Health. This writ petition has been filed making a grievance against continued suspensio n of the petitioner from service on the basis of the Annexure-3 order dated 8.4. 2005. By the said order he was placed under suspension in view of his involvemen t in the particular criminal case registered under Section 304 (B) IPC. Since the petitioner is under suspension for a considerable period of time (5 ye ars), the learned Standing Counsel, Health was requested to obtain instruction a s to whether the continued suspension of the petitioner is the utmost necessity. As per the written instructions furnished to the learned Standing Counsel, Healt h, the petitioner was placed under suspension in view of his arrest in connectio n with the said criminal case and since the duration of his custody was more tha n 48 hours, the authority considered it appropriate to place him under suspensio n. As regards the prayer of the petitioner for reinstatement in service made by his appeal/representation dated 7.12.2009, it is the stand of the respondents th at the same was received on 8.12.2009. The said representation/appeal is under p rocess and report etc. has been called for enabling the authority to pass approp riate order. Needless to say that prolonged suspension does not serve any purpose. In the ins tant case, no departmental proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner but he was placed under suspension in view of the aforesaid criminal case. The said criminal case has nothing to do with the discharge of his official duties. Unless it becomes absolutely necessary to continue the petitioner under suspensi on with the finding that the reinstatement of the petitioner in service will ham per the criminal proceeding, in my view the appropriate authority of the respond ents is required to consider seriously as to whether continued suspension of the petitioner should remain in the field as an routine affair. If the service of t he petitioner can be otherwise utilised the respondent is required to make endea vour in that direction. This is precisely the reason why the periodical review o f the order of suspension is called for by administrative instructions. Considering the above, this writ petition is disposed directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner dispassionately and with a pragmatic appr oach keeping in mind that continued suspension will not serve any purpose. The r epresentation/appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be considered and dispose d of as expeditiously as possible but not later than 30.4.2010.