JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was appointed as Senior teacher in Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan w.e.f. 24th Mardi, 1967 after his selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. He was appointed as a Headmaster, Higher Secondary School w.e.f. 30.9.78 on the basis of selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The petitioner was posted at Government Secondary School, Khandawa (Distt. Jhunjhunu) till 29.7.78. He was transferred from Government Secondary School, Khandawa (Distt.Jhunjhunu) to Higher Secondary School, Dhorimanna (Distt. Barmer). According to the petitioner he handed over the charge of Government Secondary School, Khandawa (Distt. Jhunjhunu) on 13.10.87. He was relieved thereafter and he took charge at Dhorimanna (Distt. Barmer). 2. By an order dated 31.10.87/ 2.11.87 issued by the Director Primary & Secondary Education Rajasthan,- Bikaner, the petitioner was placed under suspension in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1958. In that order it is stated that inquiry proceedings are contemplated against the petitioner who was shown as Headmaster Government Secondary School, Neemuchana (Distt. Alwar) presently posted as Headmaster Government Secondary School, Khandawa (Distt. Jhunjhunu). His headquarter during the period of suspension was kept at Jhunjhunu although he had already joined at Dhorimanna (Distt. Barmer). According to the petitioner he had made several requests for change of his headquarter on account of illness of his wife and family circumstances but his request was rejected by order dated 16.8.88 issued by the Senior Accounts Officer, Directorate of Primary & Secondary Education. The petitioner has further stated that he has neither been given subsistence allowance nor any inquiry has been started against him. Even a charge-sheet has not been given to him. The petitioner has placed on record copies of several telegrams and letters written by him for payment of subsistence allowance. He received one letter dated 13.10.88 from the Senior Accounts Officer wherein it is stated that in the order of suspension itself mention has been made regarding grant of subsistence allowance. It is also mentioned that his request for change of his headquarter had already been rejected. The Joint Director (Personnel), Bikaner wrote a letter dated 26.12.88 to the District Education Officer (Boys), Jhunjhunu as to what action had been taken for payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner. It is also mentioned that his request for change of his headquarter had already been rejected. The Joint Director (Personnel), Bikaner wrote a letter dated 26.12.88 to the District Education Officer (Boys), Jhunjhunu as to what action had been taken for payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner. The petitioner has further stated that he furnished a certificate of non-employment to the Director of Primary & Secondary Education but he has not been paid the subsistence allowance nor any inquiry has been started against him. In the matter of pay fixation the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. This appeal No. 33/85 was allowed by the Tribunal on 15.10.87. The order of the Tribunal has also not been complied with and therefore the petitioner filed writ petition which is pending as writ petition No. 2562/88. 3. The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension and also the action of non-petitioners in not paying subsistence allowance to him on various grounds mentioned in the petition. 4. In response to the notice issued by the Court the respondents have filed reply wherein it has been stated that Jaipur Bench of the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition because the order of suspension has been issued by the Director of Primary and Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner and petitioner was posted as Headmaster Government Secondary School Dhorimanna (Distt. Barmer). The respondents have also alleged that the petitioner had not given his attendance before the District Education Officer (Boys), Jhunjhunu and therefore he is not entitled to grant of subsistence allowance. It has further been stated in the reply that there are allegations of with holding of Government money and record by the petitioner during Mg posting as Head- master, 'Government Secondary School, Neemuchana (Distt. Alwar). Certain other allegations of submitting incorrect record are also under investigation against the petitioner. The respondents have justified the fixing of headquarter of the petitioner at Jhunjhunu on the ground that it is situated almost in the middle of Bikaner and Alwar. Moreover, fixing of headquarter of an employee during suspension is in the discretion of the respondents. The respondents have stated that the departmental investigation/audit is in progress and very soon the charge-sheet will be served on the petitioner and the departmental inquiry will be started. Moreover, fixing of headquarter of an employee during suspension is in the discretion of the respondents. The respondents have stated that the departmental investigation/audit is in progress and very soon the charge-sheet will be served on the petitioner and the departmental inquiry will be started. The respondents have also stated that the petitioner is not complying with the directions contained in the order of suspension and he is therefore not entitled to any subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. The respondents have also raised a plea that remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner against the order for suspension which he has failed to avail. 5. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. In that rejoinder he has stated that his headquarter was changed to Jhunjhunu after his transfer for Dhorimanna (Distt. Barmer). The petitioner submitted his joining report to the District Education Officer (Boys) Jhunjhunu on 15.7.88 (Annexure-15). According to him this fact can be proved by calling the deputation attendance register kept in office of respondents No. 3. On 16.7.88 he applied for grant of permission to leave the headquarters. A copy of this application has also been placed on record as Annexure-16. 6. Reply to the writ petition was filed on 3.7.90. On 12.2.91 the learned Additional Govt. Advocate was called upon to show as to whether charge-sheet has been served on the petitioner even now. He sought time for seeking instruction. However even on 15.2.91 the learned Additional Government Advocate could not show whether any charge-sheet has been served on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand emphatically stated that no charge-sheet has been served on the petitioner so far. 7. From the fact which have come on record it is clear that the petitioner has been under continuous suspension for last 3 years and more than 3 months. Charge-sheet has not been served upon him. Subsistence allowance has also not been paid to him. It is also born out from the record that the petitioner had been transferred from the post of Headmaster, Government Secondary School, Khandawa (Distt. Jhunjhunu) and he had handed over the charge at Khandawa on 13.10.87 and taken over charge at Dhorimanna (Distt. Barmer) on 14.10.87. The petitioner's statement in this regard has not been controverted by the respondents. It is also born out from the record that the petitioner had been transferred from the post of Headmaster, Government Secondary School, Khandawa (Distt. Jhunjhunu) and he had handed over the charge at Khandawa on 13.10.87 and taken over charge at Dhorimanna (Distt. Barmer) on 14.10.87. The petitioner's statement in this regard has not been controverted by the respondents. The order of suspension was passed without even taking note of the fact that the petitioner stood transferred from Khandawa and had joined at Dhorimanna (Distt. Barmer). Apparently his headquarter was fixed at Jhunjhunu on the assumption that he was working at Jhunjhunu at the time of passing of order of suspension. Annexure 15 & 16 placed by the petitioner on ,record, show that he had submitted his report to the District Education Officer (Boys), Jhunjhunu on 15.7.88. Annexure 12 dated 13.10.88 and Annexure 13 dated 26.12.88 do not indicate that the petitioner was not being paid subsistence allowance because he had not reported at Jhunjhunu. The proceedings of inquiry have not yet started and while his posting is at Barmer, his headquarter had fixed at Jhunjhunu. The only explanation of prolonged suspension offered by the respondents is that the matter is under investigation. It is not the case of the respondents with the petitioner has tempered with the evidence during this period of suspension. 8. Rule 13 of 1958 Rules confers power on the competent authorities to place a Government servant under suspension in contemplation or during pendency of inquiry. Suspension can also be ordered during'the investigation or trial of a criminal case against the Government servant. However, the power of suspension is not absolute one. The power has to be exercised in bonafide manner and after application of mind. The Government has issued instructions from time to time by which it has laid down guidelines for exercise of the power of suspension. It has been emphasised that suspension.of a Government servant should not be prolonged for long time and the departmental inquiry must be held expeditiously.It would be appropriate to quote the earliest and latest circulars of the Government issued in the matter of departmental inquiries. The same is as under: Circular No. F.16633/F.19(27) Apptts. It has been emphasised that suspension.of a Government servant should not be prolonged for long time and the departmental inquiry must be held expeditiously.It would be appropriate to quote the earliest and latest circulars of the Government issued in the matter of departmental inquiries. The same is as under: Circular No. F.16633/F.19(27) Apptts. (A)/60, Dated 17th March, 1960, it was decided to revise the time-schedules as under : (1) Completion of preliminary enquiry and submission of its report to the Disciplinary Authority along with draft statements of allegations and charges. 3 months (2) Examination of Preliminary Enquiry Report and service of charge-sheet on the delinquents. 1 month (3) Submission of written statements by the delinquents. Minimum 2 months Minimum 3 weeks (4) Examination of written statements and appointment of Enquiry Officer. 2 weeks (5) Completion of Departmental Enquiry. 3 months (6) Examination of Enquiry Report. 2 weeks (7) Issue of Show Cause Notice. 2 weeks (8) Submission of reply to the show cause notice by the delinquent. 3weeks (9) Examination of reply to the Show Cause Notice and issue of final orders. 1 Week D.O.P. (A-III) Circular No. F. 1(39)Karmik/A-II1/73, dated 16.10.1975. "The wide time-lag between the issue of suspension orders and the service of charge sheet on an officer under suspension in accordance with the provisions of rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 has been a matter of increasing anxiety to the Government for some time past. The major bottle nech, it has been noticed is mostly due to the long time taken by the Administrative Departments/Head of Departments in preparing the drafts of charge sheets and statementof allegations and furnishing them to the Department of Personnel. It need hardly be pointed out that this function has, of necessary, to be performed by Administrative Department/Head of Department and the latter should see to it that these drafts are expeditiously sent. Unfortunately there is little awareness of this responsibility on the part of the Administrative Departments/Head of Departments. (2). It need hardly be pointed out that this function has, of necessary, to be performed by Administrative Department/Head of Department and the latter should see to it that these drafts are expeditiously sent. Unfortunately there is little awareness of this responsibility on the part of the Administrative Departments/Head of Departments. (2). This matter has, therefore, been examined once again in the light of experience gained in this connection and it has been considered necessary to prescribe an outer limit of three months for the supply of required drafts of charge sheet and statement of allegation in respect of an officer under suspension and in the event of delay beyond three months the Secretary/Head of Department would state reasons for delay and the same would have to be submitted to the Chief Secretary/Chief Minister for their information. In case the delay is attributable to certain omission or negligence on the part of a departmental officer in not complying with the detailed instructions laid down in this Department Circular No. F.7(36) Karmik/A-III/74, dated 22.5.74, the Secretary/Head of Department will also propose disciplinary action against such defaulting officer along with necessary draft charge sheet and statement of allegations against such an officer. The drafts have to be such as will not seriously hamper scruiting in the Department of Personnel (A-II1) due to non-availability of sufficient facts involved in the allegations. (3). It has also been the experience of this Department that the Administrative Departments Head of Departments quite often make a recommendation of placing an officer under suspension even when the suspension is uncalled for as neither the nature of allegations is such which would warrant a suspension nor will it be in the interest of Government to pay him, substance allowance without taking any work from him. (4). In this Department Circular No. F.6(89)A-AIII/72 dated 21.8.74 the responsibility for taking quick and effective steps for collection of record, Summoning of witnesses etc. relating to the departmental enquiries has been cast on the Deputy Heads of the Departments dealing with the establishment matters. Normally, it should be possible for the Presenting Officer or the Enquiry Officer to ask such an officer designated by the Head of the Department for this purpose to ensure timely action in this behalf. relating to the departmental enquiries has been cast on the Deputy Heads of the Departments dealing with the establishment matters. Normally, it should be possible for the Presenting Officer or the Enquiry Officer to ask such an officer designated by the Head of the Department for this purpose to ensure timely action in this behalf. It has, however, been noticed that the Deputy Heads of Departments in many cases are not taking sufficient interest in the quick disposal of pending enquiries and that in a few cases not co-operating with the Presenting Officer or the Enquiry Officer in this regard. The Government have, therefore, decided that where ever the Deputy Heads of Departments nominated for dealing with the matters relating to the departmental enquires is found wanting in response, the Presenting Officer appointed by the Government for prosecution in Departmental Enquiries will move the Administrative secretary for suitable action against such defaulting Officer through the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries. (5). The aforesaid instruction may be brought to the notice of all concerned for compliance. 9. The court have time and again held that suspension of a Government servant should not be prolonged one and inquiry proceedings must be completed expeditiously. In Nand Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Others 1989(1) R.L.R. 601 a Division Bench quashed suspension which had continued for about 3 years. In its judgment the Division Bench had observed: "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 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 'vinoulamjuris' 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. Thus, suspension does not dissolve 'vinoulamjuris' 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 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 trupitude, grave misconduct or indiscipline or will full 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 on office is likely to hamper or frustrate the inquiry. 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 slime are required to be observed by the authority concerned. There is also no dispute that if the Government issues guidelines and instructions, the slime 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. 10. In Dr. B.M.. Bohara v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6558190 decided on 18.2.91 after a detailed examination of the concept of suspension and after consideration of the various circulars of the Government as well as the decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, it has been held that no absolute power vests with the Government or competent authorities under 1958 Rules to place a Government servant under suspension. It has also been held that if there is a wholesale violation of administrative circulars issued by the Government it may in a given case be sufficient to vitiate the order of suspension. ' 11. In Kuldeep Singh Dhillon v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3174/88 and Kuldeep Singh Dhillon v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2044/89 (decided on December, 13, 1990) , the court has struck down the suspension on the ground that inquiry had not been initiated for long time after the petitioner had praced under suspension. In B.K. Sharma v. State of Rajasthan I.L.R. (29) Rajasthan 515 a learned Single Judge of this Court held that prolonged suspension of a Government servant can properly be compared with patient in coma. Court quashed the order of suspension which was continued for a number of years. 12. In P.R. Nayak v. Union of India, 1972 S.L.R. 219 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a departmental inquiry can be treated to even initiated to only after charge sheet issued to the Government servant. 13. As far as facts of this case are concerned, it is clear that the petitioner has remained under suspension for last more than 3 years and 3 months. The departmental inquiry has not even been initiated what to say of concluding it. The Government instructions regarding early disposal of departmental inquiries have been thrown to winds. The respondents have not shown that any action has been taken against the competent authority for serious lapse of not initiating departmental inquiry for over 3 years. The departmental inquiry has not even been initiated what to say of concluding it. The Government instructions regarding early disposal of departmental inquiries have been thrown to winds. The respondents have not shown that any action has been taken against the competent authority for serious lapse of not initiating departmental inquiry for over 3 years. Thus, there has been a wholesale breach of the instructions issued by the government. In addition to that the petitioner has not even been paid subsistence allowance for this entire period on a filmsy and untenable ground that he had not reported before the District Education Officer, Jhunjhunu. The order of suspension was passed on a wholly wrong assumption that the petitioner was serving at Jhunjhunu although he had already been transferred to Dhorimanna District Barmer. He did submit his report to the District Education Officer, Jhunjhunu on 15.7.88. At no point of time before filling reply to the writ petition, the respondent had informed the petitioner that the subsistence allowance was not paid on account of his non-joining at Jhunjhunu. Thus, in my opinion even though initially the order of suspension may not have been wholly arbitrary, the same has lost every idea of justification on account of its continuance for over 3 years and 3 months without departmental inquiry having been initiated and without payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner. The petitioner has been subjected to untold harassment and made to suffer injury without justification. 14. The argument of the respondent regarding availability of alternative remedy is wholly misconcieved. In the peculiar facts of this case, there is no justification to direct the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal under Rule 22 of 1958 Rules. This petition has remained pending before the court for over one year and 6 months and there can be no rationale to deny relief to the petitioner on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 15. The plea of the respondents regarding jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench is clearly untenable. The incident with reference to which the petitioner has been suspended relate to his posting at Neemuchana (Distt. -Alwar) and Khandawa (Distt. Jhunjhunu). Thus the cause of action for passing of the order of suspension arose in districts which come within the jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench of this Court. Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable at Jaipur Bench of this Court. 16. -Alwar) and Khandawa (Distt. Jhunjhunu). Thus the cause of action for passing of the order of suspension arose in districts which come within the jurisdiction of Jaipur Bench of this Court. Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable at Jaipur Bench of this Court. 16. In view of the above discussion the writ petition is allowed. The continued suspension of the petitioner is declared illegal from the date of this order. The petitioner shall be reinstated within one week of presentation of copy of this order. The petitioner shall be paid his subsistence allowance tor the entire period of suspension after giving him benefit of grade increments and :pay fixation. From the date of this order he shall be reinstated in service and be paid his full salary and allowances. The treatment which shall be given to the period of suspension will of course dependent on the result of inquiry which may be held against the petitioner by the respondents. The arrear of subsistence allowance be paid to him within two months.Parties to bear their own costs. Writ Petition Allowed. *******