Reasoned suspension review is mandatory; a bare conclusion without considering relevant facts cannot sustain continued suspension.

A suspension review was held unsustainable where the competent authority failed to comply with earlier directions to consider all relevant facts and record a reasoned, speaking order. Reciting the history of litigation and CBI comments without addressing the material circumstances did not amount to an informed decision. The court reiterated that prolonged suspension alone does not automatically justify interference, but the reviewing authority must still apply its mind to the relevant record and give reasons. On that standard, the continued suspension order was quashed and the respondent's reinstatement with consequential benefits remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order continuing the respondent's suspension was sustainable in law, and whether the review of suspension complied with the earlier directions requiring consideration of all relevant facts and a reasoned order.

Analysis: The record showed that the competent authority continued the suspension by reciting the history of litigation and the CBI's comments, but without addressing the relevant points earlier directed to be considered by the Tribunal. A mere conclusion, unsupported by discussion of the material circumstances, did not satisfy the requirement of an informed and reasoned decision. Prolonged suspension by itself may not always warrant interference, but the authority was still bound to consider the relevant facts and pass a speaking order. The impugned decision failed on that standard and reflected non-compliance with the Tribunal's earlier directions.

Conclusion: The order continuing the respondent's suspension was rightly quashed and the challenge to that view failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition challenging quashing of the continued suspension was dismissed, and the respondent's reinstatement with legally admissible consequential benefits was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a suspension is required to be reviewed on stated directions, the competent authority must consider all relevant materials and record a reasoned, speaking order; a bare conclusion without such consideration is unsustainable.

---