WP(C) 2616/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. H. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Handique, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the order dated 09 .07.2008 passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchay at & Rural Development Department, suspending him from service. According to the petitioner though he was put under suspension in the month of July 2008, with e ffect from his detention in police custody i.e. 26.04.2008 and the charge memo d ated 06.11.2008 has been issued, to which the petitioner has submitted the reply , the said proceeding has thereafter not commenced though the Inquiry Officer ha s been appointed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits tha t the respondent authorities may be directed to complete the said departmental p roceeding within a reasonable period of time and in the event the same could not be completed within the said period of time, the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. Mr. Handique, learned State counsel has submitted that the authority wil l definitely complete the departmental proceeding initiated against the petition er as expeditiously as possible. It has further been submitted that keeping in v iew the fact that the petitioner was placed under suspension because of detentio n in custody and also keeping in view the charges leveled against the petitioner , the respondents may not be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service by revoking the order of suspension. It appears from the order dated 09.07.2008 that the petitioner was place d under suspension because of his detention in police custody. It also appears f rom the said order that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was c ontemplated. The charge memo dated 06.11.2008 was thereafter issued by the Commi ssioner and Secretary leveling three charges relating to the misappropriation of the Govt. money to the tune of Rs.42,99,000/- and also for violation of financi al procedures for personal gain. The petitioner has submitted the reply to the said charge memo and the d isciplinary authority being not satisfied decided to hold the disciplinary enqui ry and accordingly the Inquiry Officer was appointed who has issued the notice o f the first hearing on 07.09.2009. According to the petitioner the departmental proceeding thereafter was not preceded. Keeping in view the aforesaid position and also the suspension of the pe titioner because of the detention in police custody and the allegation of misapp ropriation of Govt. money to the tune of Rs.42,99,000/-, in my considered opinio n it is not a fit case to interfere with the order of suspension. However, since the proceeding has been initiated that has to be completed by the disciplinary authority within the reasonable period of time. In the instant case though the notice of first hearing was issued by the Inquiry Officer on 07.09.2009, the said proceeding did not proceed thereafter, according to the petitioner. That being the position, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the disciplinary authority to complete the disciplinary enquiry in itiated against the petitioner with a period of 6(six) months from today. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Handique, learned State counsel .