JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the order dated 4th September, 1986 whereby the petitioner was put under suspension with immediate effect pending an enquiry in the matter of misappropriation/embezzlement. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner commenced to discharge his duties as Accountant in III Battalion. R. A. C. Jaipur in October, 1983 and is continuing in the said battalion. In addition to his usual work he was entrusted with the work of three cash books of private funds of the same battalion. The said private funds were Bank Funds, Welfare Funds and Benevolent Fund of the III Battalion R. A. C. Jaipur. The case of the petitioner is that though he has maintained all the 3 cash books regularly and complete in all respects according to the practice and procedure prevailing in the department, which was adopted by his predecessors. The accounts maintained by the petitioner in respect of the above mentioned private funds have been audited by the Internal Checking Party as well as by the party from the A. G. Office from time to time. The Internal Checking Party inspected the accounts of the private funds in the month of March 1986 and found the cash books and the balance in order. A certificate to this effect was granted by the Inspection Party. The Internal Checking Party again made inspection in the month of April 1986 and was satisfied that the accounts are in order. Similarly the Audit Party from the office of Accountant General Rajasthan, Jaipur as well as the Internal Checking Party audited the accounts in the year 184-85 and found the accounts perfectly in order. The case of the petitioner is that a report of embezzlement of Rs. 1,07,396.03 in the private funds has been made against him and the petitioner has been suspended vide order dated 4th September, 1986 on the basis of incorrect audit report of the Internal Checking Party. The contention of the petitioner as set forth in the writ petition is that the report of the Internal Checking Party is absolutely illegal and has been prepared on the basis of incorrect appreciation of the record and cash books. The contention of the petitioner as set forth in the writ petition is that the report of the Internal Checking Party is absolutely illegal and has been prepared on the basis of incorrect appreciation of the record and cash books. In the writ petition the petitioner has also pleaded that a First Information Report has also been registered against the petitioner on 23rd August 1986. Aggrieved by the order of suspension the petitioner had filed an appeal before the respondent No. 1 under rule 22 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The appeal is still pending and has not been decided inspite of several reminders. The case of the petitioner in short is that after his suspension neither the chargesheet has been prepared by the respondent nor challan has been filed in the police case. In the criminal case, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr. P. C. by the learned District Judge, Jaipur. For contesting the bail application the prosecution took 18 adjournments. but still could not show any prima facie case against the petitioner and consequently the bail application was allowed on 10th April, 1987. It is further averred by the petitioner that his suspension is in violation of the guidelines issued by the Government through various circulars. The petitioner has thus, challenged the order of suspension submitting that the order of suspension is by way of penalty, vexatious and inexpedient. 3. Notices were issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and allowed. After receipt of the notice, the respondents have filed their reply. They have supported the order of suspension and have stated that from the audit report prima facie case of embezzelment is made out against the petitioner. The respondents have also contended that a police case No. 302/86 under section 409 IPC is pending investigation and a departmental enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner. As regards appeal, the respondents have submitted that it is likely to be decided in near future. 4. Shri Singhvi learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was suspended on 4th September, 1986 and no action so far has been taken against the petitioner for launching a departmental enquiry or for filing a challan in criminal case. As regards appeal, the respondents have submitted that it is likely to be decided in near future. 4. Shri Singhvi learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was suspended on 4th September, 1986 and no action so far has been taken against the petitioner for launching a departmental enquiry or for filing a challan in criminal case. Shri Singhvi thus, has submitted that the continuation of the suspension is completely arbitrary. unreasonable and violative of the guidelines issued by the Government of Rajasthan through circulars. He has further contended that the order of suspension was based on extraneous consideration. Shri Singhvi has also contended that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner and continuation of suspension is having a demoralising effect on the petitioner as when a public officer is suspended his status is lowered down in the eyes of his colleagues as well as in the eyes of the public. It also affects the social reputation and status of the employee. 5. Controverting his arguments Shri Ashok Parihar appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is not justified as the respondents are taking active steps for instituting departmental enquiry and a challan is likely to be filed against the petitioner. He has further submitted that Government has power to put an employee under suspension pending Departmental Enquiry or pending Criminal investigation. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both learned counsel for the parties. The following facts are undisputed : (a) That the order of suspension was passed on 4th September, 1986 on the ground that a departmental proceeding is under contemplation under rule 18 of the said rules. (b) A First Information Report was registered against the petitioner on 23rd August, 1986. (c) So far the respondents have not served any chargesheet upon the petitioner. (d) So far challan has not been filed in the matter of criminal case. (e) No action was taken by the authority concerned to dispose of the representation which are pending for the last 3 years and for the disposal of which the petitioner is continuously making his representation. (f) Appeal filed under rule 22 of the said Rules against the order of suspension dated 4th Sept., 1986 issued under signatures of the Director Treasuries and Accounts, Rajasthan, Jaipur is pending. (f) Appeal filed under rule 22 of the said Rules against the order of suspension dated 4th Sept., 1986 issued under signatures of the Director Treasuries and Accounts, Rajasthan, Jaipur is pending. (g) The petitioner has submitted a resume of the accounts for the date he took-over charge i. e. on 25th February, 1984 to 31st March, 1986. (h) That the accounts were regularly checked by the Internal Checking Party as well as by the Party from the office of the Accountant General. (i) That the charge against the petitioner is for embezzelment of Rs. 1,07,396.03 on the basis of the report of the Internal audit party, but the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr. P. C. 6. It is true that the Government has a right to suspend its employees in contemplation of departmental proceedings or pending investigation. After the service of the charge-sheet if the charges are of a serious nature a Government employee may be suspended pending enquiry. It is now well settled principle that suspension connotes temporary cessation of right to work or temporary deprivation of the office, position or privilege. The real effect of the order of suspension is that though an employee continues to be in service he is not permitted to work and during the period of his suspension he is paid only some allowance which is generally called subsistence allowances. Thus, suspension does not dissolve 'vinoulam juris" of the employment relationship. Government has right to suspend an employee pending departmental enquiry or pending criminal investigation. But it is also equally true that such power of suspension cannot be exercised arbitrarily and without any reasonable ground. The power of suspension is to be sparingly exercised and should not be exercised in vindictive manner and it is expected of an authority passing the order to take into account all the relevant materials, nature of the charge, the attendant circumstances and the necessity or desirability of placing the public servant under suspension. The Government is also conscious of the fact that the power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable grounds, therefore, guidelines have been laid down by the Government. In the writ petition the petitioner has reproduced guidelines which have been issued by the Government through difference circulars. The Government is also conscious of the fact that the power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable grounds, therefore, guidelines have been laid down by the Government. In the writ petition the petitioner has reproduced guidelines which have been issued by the Government through difference circulars. The following are some of the guidelines issued by the Government stating that they should be strictly observed in all the cases of suspension of Government employees pending departmental enquiries:- (i) Suspension should be resorted to with caution and only when one of the major penalties prescribed under the CCA Rules, 1958 is ultimately likely to be imposed on the delinquent. (ii) Ordinarily a Government servant should be suspended when there is a strong prima facie case against him and the allegations involve moral turpitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or wilful refusal to carry out orders of superior authority; (iii) Where there is a strong prima facie case against him which, if proved. would ordinarily result in his dismissal or removal from service and either:- (a) it is inadvisable that he should continue to perform the duties of his office or (b) his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the enquiry. 7. In this case, there is nothing on the record that respondent No. 1 while putting the petitioner under suspension have taken note of the aforesaid instructions and has applied his mind to the guidelines at the time when the impugned order of suspension was passed. There is also no dispute that if the Government issues guidelines and instructions the same are required to be observed by the authority concerned. It cannot be disputed also that if suspension order is passed in violation of the guidelines it may be stamped as unfair and is likely to be vitiated on the touch-stone of arbitrariness. 8. Now coming to the facts of the case. The petitioner was suspended on 4th September, 1986 and the criminal case was registered on 23rd August, 1986. The petitioner was suspended on the ground that an enquiry was contemplated against him but so far neither departmental enquiry ha, b:en I Lunched by serving a charge-sheet nor in a criminal case challan has been filed. The petitioner was suspended on 4th September, 1986 and the criminal case was registered on 23rd August, 1986. The petitioner was suspended on the ground that an enquiry was contemplated against him but so far neither departmental enquiry ha, b:en I Lunched by serving a charge-sheet nor in a criminal case challan has been filed. In the written statement, filed on 10th September, 1987 the respondents have stated that charge-sheets are under preparation and challan in the criminal case is likely to be filed soon. But till today no action has been taken by the Government. The inaction of the Government for a period of more than 3 years in taking appropriate action primafacie indicates that either the Government his no material evidence to substantiate a criminal case or to prepare a charge-sheet against the petitioner or the Government has no intention to proceed further in the matter and the disciplinary authorities only want to continue the suspension order as long as possible for some extraneous considerations for continuing disability or distress of the petitioner. In our opinion, there is no principle of natural justice or logic or reasonableness under which the Executive could be inhibited from indefinitely placing an officer in agony and disability of suspension from his office while the question of charges is being adumbrated in a most leisurely fashion and years might elapse before a decision is taken. On the contrary an officer who is under suspension is entitled to ask the authorities concerned that the matter should be investigated with reasonable diligence and that the charges should be framed against him within a reasonable period of time. In this case 3 years have passed still no action has been taken. Such an attitude of the Government or the authorities concerned cannot be justified. Such a delay indicates that the authorities are acting in an arbitrary manner in exercising the powers of placing an employee under suspension. When a person is put under suspension it has a disastrous impact on the fair name and good reputation that may have been earned and built up by a Government employee in the course of many years of his devotional and hard service. When a person is put under suspension it has a disastrous impact on the fair name and good reputation that may have been earned and built up by a Government employee in the course of many years of his devotional and hard service. The damage suffered by the Government employee is largely irreversible because the degeneration and disgrace vitiated on him by the order of suspension is seldom wiped out by his being subsequently exonerated from the blame and reinstated in service. It is therefore, expected that whenever a Government employee is required to be put under suspension. the powers of suspension should be sparingly exercised and meticulous care should be taken to examining the desirability of placing the employee under suspension bearing in mind the principles and the guidelines laid down by the Government from time to time. 9. After placing a Government employee under suspension the Government should examine the case for continuing the order of suspension within a reasonable time and if such an action is not taken and the suspension of the Government employee is allowed to be continued without any reasonable case and without taking active steps to institute a departmental enquiry it would reflect arbitrariness on the part of the disciplinary authority. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the suspension order was passed without applying mind to the guidelines issued by the Government and that continuation and the prolonged suspension of the petitioner cannot be justified on any ground whatsoever. Even if the order of suspension where passed may be justified, its continuation cannot be justified on any ground. 11. In the premises aforesaid, we allow the writ petition and quash the order dated 4th September, 1986 passed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner will be allowed to resume his post. However, it will he open to the Government to put the petitioner under suspension, if challan in the criminal case is filed or if the petitioner is served with a charge-sheet. Undoubtedly the suspension order would be passed after being satisfied that it is necessary or at least desirable to keep the petitioner under suspension having regard to the serious allegations of misconduct, and the attendant circumstances and following the guidelines issued by the Government. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******