JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - The petitioner who was a supply inspector having been caught in a trap organised by Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) was suspended by the District Magistrate on 18th March, 1986. Be this petition he seeks a direction to opposite-parties to reinstate him in view of various Government orders issued from time to time lying down a policy to avoid hardship to the suspended employee if no charge-sheet is submitted within six months provided the appointing authority or the head of department is satisfied that the delay was not due to him. Relying on these very orders the petitioner had come even earlier when this Court on 11th February, 1987 while dismissing the petition directed the District Magistrate to decide the representation of petitioner within a month. But unfortunately the officer concerned instead of following directions chose to pass on the responsibility to District Supply Officer. It was not only undesirable but improper. The order of Supply Officer dated 20th March, 1987 is liable to be quashed for this infirmity alone. The order is bad also because the reason for rejection of representation is that the petition could be reinstated only after finalisation of proceedings pending in Court, No reference is made to Government orders laying down the circumstances in which a suspended employee in a trap case was liable to be reinstated. Nor any effort was made to ascertain the circumstances in which charge-sheet had not been submitted for more than a year. An order issued from Government is binding on its officer. Any decision against it without any reason cannot be maintained. 2. It is regrettable that the opposite parties despite grant of time have chosen to keep mum. No counter-affidavit has been filed. Once this petition was allowed on 7th September, 1987 and judgment was dictated in open Court. But before signing some doubt arose, therefore, it was directed to be listed for further hearing. It is being disposed of again after hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned standing counsel. 3. Relevant Government orders dated 18th July, 1979, 12th August, 1980 and 31st March, 1984 have been filed as Annexures 1 to 3 to the writ petition. The first order emphasises the urgency of submission of charge-sheet. It is being disposed of again after hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned standing counsel. 3. Relevant Government orders dated 18th July, 1979, 12th August, 1980 and 31st March, 1984 have been filed as Annexures 1 to 3 to the writ petition. The first order emphasises the urgency of submission of charge-sheet. In clause 6 it directs that normally the charge-sheet should accompany the suspension order except in cases where criminal cases have been registered or in cases of embezzlement where department proceedings were continuing or cases have been registered with police or cases in which public interest etc. is involved. The second order was issued in furtherance of first order. It was pointed out that despite order having been issued in 1979 it came to the knowledge of Government that employees continue to be suspended for years particularly in vigilance or trap cases. Since even after submission of charge-sheet such cases drag for years which is neither conducive to administration nor to the employees the order directed that if charge-sheet was not submitted in Court within six months in trap cases then the Department Secretary or Head of Department or appointing authority may in every case take a decision on merits. And if for any reason it is found that the employee was not liable to be reinstated then a reasoned order should be passed. And the matter be examined again after six months. The order of 1979 was further modified in March, 1984 and it was directed that if charge-sheet was not submitted within six months then the employee should be reinstated. The sheet-anchor of petitioner is this last order. It has been emphasised time and again that the opposite-parties in not following this order have not only committed error of law but their action is in teeth of the order. 4. Even though the submission appears to be attractive and was responsible for Persuading us to allow the writ petition earlier but a bare perusal of the order shows that it does not refer to Government order dated 12th August, 1980 which deals with trap cases. It directs reinstatement in cases referred to in Government order dated 18th July, 1979. Even in that order exception was made in respect of embezzlement etc. It directs reinstatement in cases referred to in Government order dated 18th July, 1979. Even in that order exception was made in respect of embezzlement etc. Therefore, on employee against whom trap had been laid is entitled to consideration of his case by the authority mentioned in the order after every six months for deciding if such employee was entitled to be reinstated. It is true that the District Magistrate who appears to be appointing authority or the District Supply Officer who is head of department have failed to discharge their duty yet it does not entitle petitioner to claim reinstatement from this Court. For that the circumstances mentioned in 1980 order have to be examined. And that can be done by opposite-parties only. 5. Therefore, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 26th March, 1987 is quashed. The opposite-parties are directed to act in accordance with the Government Order, dated 12th August, 1980. 6. Further in case the charge-sheet has not been submitted the petitioner shall be paid his full salary he was drawing on date of suspension till the submission of charge-sheet. 7. There shall be no order as to costs.