Judgment :- DR A.S. ANAND, C.J. 1. The appellant was placed under suspension on 10 8-1987 by the order passed by the second respondent. He questioned the order of suspension principally on the ground that since no order of extension of suspension had been passed before the expiry of the period of three months the order of continued suspension was bad in law. 2. The learned single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition No. 11294 of 1988 by the judgment dated 24-11-1988 since in the meanwhile the order of suspension of the appellant pending enquiry had been extended by the Government. The order of the learned single Judge had been questioned through this writ appeal. 3. The learned Government Pleader has filed a counter affidavit in this appeal explaining the circumstances which has resulted in the continued suspension of the appellant till date. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for hearing today. 4. It is not disputed that the appellant had been suspended by the order dated 10-8 1937. It is also not in dispute that the appellant is governed bv the Tamil Nadu Municipal Public Health Services (Discipline and Appeal Regulations. Almost three years have elapsed since the appellant was placed under suspension, but the enquiry had not been concluded yet. We are not impres sed with the submission made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents to justify the continued suspension of the appellant particularly when we find that the records which had submitted to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance ane Anti-corruption had been received back by the respondents, on their own showing, ad early as on 14-10-19&8. The mere pendency of the writ petition in this Court, when there was no stay for the continuation of the departmental proceedings, could not be used as an argument to justify the continued suspension. The suspension is undoubtedly prolonged and such a prolonged suspension, in our opinion, is unreasonable and without any justification. 5. We, therefore, allow this writ appeal, set aside the order of suspension dated 10-8-1987 and direct the respondents to reinstate the appellant forthwith We, however, clarify that the setting aside of the order of suspension would be without prejudice to the departmental enquiry or the criminal case which the learned Government Pleader submits has been registered against the appellant in Cr. No. 421 of 1987 on 30-7-1987. The authorities shall be at liberty to proceed with that case and take such action as may be permissible in law. There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.