JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. 1. THE petitioner is in the employment of the State Government as Assistant Engineer, Lift irrigation Division, Gazipur. While posted at Gazipur, he was placed under suspension under the order of the State Government, dated 13 February 1975, pending enquiry against certain charges. THE petitioner raised a claim before the Service Tribunal under S. 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976, challenging the order of his suspension. THE Service Tribunal by its order, dated 18 June 1976, dismissed the petitioner's claim. THEreupon the petitioner filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before this Court on 10 September 1976, challenging the validity of the orders of his suspension as well as the order of the Service Tribunal. 2. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised two questions before us in impugning the order of suspension: (1) there was no material before the State Government to form objectively an opinion that the petitioner's suspension in contemplation of enquiry was necessary and in fact the State Government had taken no decision to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner; and (2) no charges have been framed against the petitioner and he has been kept under suspension arbitrarily in contravention of rule 49A of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner's allegation that there was no material before the State Government to form opinion as contemplated by rule 49 A has been controverted in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government. The Service Tribunal had perused the relevant file of the State Government and thereupon it rejected the petitioner's contention. Today during the course of hearing, learned standing counsel has placed the original records of the State Government before us. On a perusal of the same, we find that the Chief Engineer and the Superintending Engineer, Litigation Department, had submitted reports to the State Government which contained serious allegations of irregularities and illegalities against the petitioner and some other officers. The State Government after considering that report decided to hold disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, it further decided to place the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry against him. In view of these facts the petitioner's contention that there was no material before the State Government or that the State Government had taken no decision to hold disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner cannot be upheld. 3. In view of these facts the petitioner's contention that there was no material before the State Government or that the State Government had taken no decision to hold disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner cannot be upheld. 3. AS regards the petitioner's second contention, the respondents have failed to give any reasonable explanation for the delay in completion of the preliminary enquiry. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 13 February 1975, in contemplation of departmental proceedings against him and the State Government directed the Vigilance Department to hold investigation and submit its report. The Government file shows that since December 1976, the matter has been pending with the vigilance, no interim or final report of any kind has been submitted, consequently the State Government has not framed charges against the petitioner. Thus a period of more than two and a half years has elapsed but the contemplated enquiry has not been initiated and no charges have been framed or served on the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government it is asserted that delay in framing charges has occurred as the Vigilance Department has to contact a lot of people including officials and non-officials to collect material to frame charges against the petitioner We do not know whether the Vigilance Department is making investigation for the purpose of criminal trial or departmental trial. This is not clear even from the Government file produced before us. The State Government has, however, taken a stand that it suspended the petitioner in exercise of its power under rule 49A in contemplation of departmental enquiry. We would, therefore, proceed on the assumption that the Vigilance Department was entrusted with the preliminary enquiry to collect material to enable the State Government to frame charges against the petitioner. Before the Service Tribunal also the petitioner had raised his grievance against the inordinate delay. The Service Tribunal refused to interfere on the ground that the matter under enquiry required the Vigilance Department to record voluminous evidence and to contact various persons, therefore, the enquiry was bound to take some time. The situation which prevailed before the Service Tribunal on 18 June 1976, continues to exist even today after the expiry of a period of fifteen months. There is no explanation in the counter-affidavit for this delay. It appears that no efforts were made to expedite the preliminary enquiry after the Tribunal's order. 4. The situation which prevailed before the Service Tribunal on 18 June 1976, continues to exist even today after the expiry of a period of fifteen months. There is no explanation in the counter-affidavit for this delay. It appears that no efforts were made to expedite the preliminary enquiry after the Tribunal's order. 4. IN August 1976, the petitioner filed this petition. On 18 July 1977, a Bench of this Court directed the standing counsel to obtain instructions from the State Government about the period of time within which it would issue charge sheet against the petitioner. The State Government failed to give any instructions to its counsel and the standing counsel is not in a position to state before us even today the period of time during which the State Government expects to issue charges to the petitioner. Standing counsel made a request to us to grant two months' time to the State Government to enable it to frame charges. We find no good ground to accept this prayer. The sequence of events as narrated above would clearly show that the State Government had sufficiently long period of time to complete the preliminary enquiry and to frame charges. The State Government file further indicates that several representations were made to the Government by the members of the Legislature and other people to revoke the order of suspension or to frame charges against the petitioner. Decision on the question was deferred on the ground that Vigilance Department was holding enquiry. These facts show that the question of inordinate delay had been brought to the notice of the State Government but it found itself helpless due to the laziness of the Vigilance Department. Rule 49A of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules confers power on the State Government to "suspend a Government servant even at the stage when an enquiry is contemplated against him. The enquiry contemplated may be prior to the submission of fact finding report or even before holding preliminary enquiry. Rule 49A of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules confers power on the State Government to "suspend a Government servant even at the stage when an enquiry is contemplated against him. The enquiry contemplated may be prior to the submission of fact finding report or even before holding preliminary enquiry. A Full Bench of five Judges of this Court in State v. Jai Singh [ 1974 A.L.J. 862], held: "Suspension pending enquiry under rule 49A of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or rule 1A of the Uttar Pradesh Punishment and Appeal Rules can be ordered at any stage prior to or after the framing of charges, when on objective consideration the authority concerned is of the view that a formal departmental inquiry under rules 55 and 55A of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules or rules 5 and 5A of the Uttar Pradesh Punishment and Appeal Rules is expected, or such an inquiry is proceeding. At what stage the power under the above rules can be exercised shall always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case." If a Government servant is placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry against him public interest enjoins that the State Government or the authority concerned shall frame charges and serve the same on the Government servant as expeditiously as possible. In some cases, the State Government may take time in collecting material to draw a formal charge sheet but the time so taken must be reasonable. It would be unreasonable to keep a Government servant under suspension in contemplation of enquiry even without charges for a period of two and a half years. It is desirable in public interest to serve charges along with the order of suspension in some cases this may rot be possible, the framing of charges could be deferred for years. In the instant case the State Government has taken two and a half years in collecting material, even then it has failed to frame charges against the petitioner. 5. LEARNED standing counsel contended that the State Government was not at fault for the delay caused in framing the charges, instead the delay was caused due to the time taken by the Vigilance Department. 5. LEARNED standing counsel contended that the State Government was not at fault for the delay caused in framing the charges, instead the delay was caused due to the time taken by the Vigilance Department. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the Vigilance Department is not an independent or separate entity, instead it is a wing of the State Government which is under the control and supervision of the State Government. If the officers of the Vigilance Department do not hold enquiry expeditiously or if they caused unreasonable delay in collecting material in competing the preliminary enquiry, it is open to the Sae Government to take action against the officers of the Vigilance Department. The Government file does not show that any action was taken against any of the officers of Vigilance Department. In the circumstances it is not open to the State Government to justify the delay on the ground of the slackness of the Vigilance Department. In our opinion, the State Government has failed to give any reasonable explanation for the undue delay caused in the framing of the charges. The petitioner's continuance under suspension during all this time in contemplation of the departmental enquiry has caused substantial injury to him. 6. BEFORE we part with this case, we would like to observe that the observations made by this Court in Jai Singh case [1974 A.L.J. 862] {vide supra), that a Government servant can be placed under suspension even before the preliminary enquiry is held against him has been taken as a licence to place a Government servant under suspension for indefinite period of time in contemplation of departmental proceedings. Rule 49A does not contemplate any such situation. The observation made in Jai Singh case (vide supra), should be interpreted in a reasonable manner and it is expected that the authority which is empowered to suspend a Government servant in contemplation of departmental enquiry would act expeditiously in framing charges and serve the same on the Government servant. If a Government servant is placed under suspension for an indefinite period of time in contemplation of departmental proceedings against him, it would be certainly against the requirements of rule 49A and against public interest. If a Government servant is placed under suspension for an indefinite period of time in contemplation of departmental proceedings against him, it would be certainly against the requirements of rule 49A and against public interest. We are constrained to observe that in the instant case the State Government was reminded several times to get the preliminary enquiry completed and to frame charges against the petitioner and in the alternative to revoke the suspension order, but the State Government did nothing of the kind except that it sent reminders to the Vigilance Department. If there was no material for framing of the charges it would have been proper and desirable for the State Government to have revoked the suspension order. Even when the suspension order was challenged in this petition the State Government remained inactive. This Court expected that instead or defending its action, the State Government would take immediate action to frame charges, but nothing of the kind was done. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner's suspension for an indefinite period of time is unreasonable which is liable to be struck down. In the result we allow the petition and quash the order of the State Government, dated 13 February 1975, as well as the order of the Service Tribunal, dated 18 June 1976. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.