JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner had attained the age of 57 years at the time of filing of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner gives out that the petitioner is going to retire on April 30, 1991. 2. The petitioner joined service as L.D.C. in 1954 and after 13 years of service he was placed under suspension by order dated February 21, 1967 passed by the Principal and Controller of S.M.S. Medical College and attached Hospitals. He was involved in a criminal case. He was convicted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur on November 8, 1983. His conviction was however, set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide judgment dated June 5, 1984. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated October 22, 1967 (sic October 22, 1970). Thus the petitioner has remained under suspension from February 21, 1967 till date i.e. for a period of more than 24 years and 2 months. For 13 years, he had served the Government and for almost twice that period, he has remained under suspension. The inquiry, which was initiated on October 22, 1967 has not proceeded an inch as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There may be some element of justification for not proceeding with the inquiry because the petitioner was prosecuted for his alleged involvement in a criminal case, but after acquittal on May 5, 1984, there remained no justification for not concluding the departmental inquiry. The petitioner has stated that no steps have been taken even after June 5, 1984. The total period for which the departmental inquiry has remained pending is now more than 20 years. 3. After admission of the writ petition on February 6, 1991, a notice was issued to the respondents and on April 9, 1991, learned Addl. Government Advocate was directed to file reply on or before April 23, 1991. It was made clear that the writ petition will be disposed of at the orders stage. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents despite an opportunity having been afforded on April 9, 1991 and the learned Deputy Government Advocate again requested for grant of time to file reply. 4. It was made clear that the writ petition will be disposed of at the orders stage. No reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents despite an opportunity having been afforded on April 9, 1991 and the learned Deputy Government Advocate again requested for grant of time to file reply. 4. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is due to retire on April 30, 1991 and he has already suffered suspension for more than 24 years and 2 months, I do not find it proper to grant further time to file reply. 5. In B.K. Sharma v. State of Rajasthan ILR 1979 (2) Raj. 515 almost 12 years back a Bench of this Court has made critical observations on prolonged suspension of a Government servant. That was a case of continued suspension for 11 years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also made similar observations in O.P. Gupta v. Union of India 1988-I-LLJ-453. In that case also the suspension had continued for 11 years. Recently, this court had decided some cases of prolonged suspension of the employes of the Medical & Health Department, which had continued for 17 years and now this is a case in which the petitioner has contined under suspension for 24 years and 2 months. Any semblance of justification which could be offered for suspension at the time of making it, with his acquittal by the learned Additional Session Judge No. 1 vide its judgment dated June 5, 1984 that also disappeared on that day. The very foundation of the suspension of the petitioner lay in the institution of criminal case against him and once he has been acquitted, it was obligatory for the respondents to have issued order of his reinstatement. 6. Be that as it may, I find that there is no justification whatsoever for this prolongned suspension of the petitioner and the suspension of the petitioner is, therefore, liable to be quashed forthwith. Order accordingly. 7. So far as inquiry proceedings are concerned, although the same were initiated vide memorandum dated October 22, 1970 and although period of 20 years has elapsed no decision has been taken by the disciplinary authority. The assertion of the petitioner that no step has been taken by the disciplinary authority has not been controverted. The foundation of that inquiry also lies in the allegation, which constituted the basis of criminal prosectuion launched against the petitioner. The assertion of the petitioner that no step has been taken by the disciplinary authority has not been controverted. The foundation of that inquiry also lies in the allegation, which constituted the basis of criminal prosectuion launched against the petitioner. Once he has been acquitted, there could hardly be any justification to continue the departmental inquiry. Moreover even if there was any additional charge, failure of the respondents to conclude the inquiry for 20 years afford sufficient justification for quashing the proceedings. 8. In State of M.P. v. Bani Ram 1990 I CLR 679 the Supreme Court had quashed the proceedings of inquiry initiated after a period of 12 years, of the incidence. Though on facts there may be some distinction in Bani Ram's case and the present case, but the very fact that the respondents have failed to take steps in the inquiry proceedings after June 5, 1984 also justified the order for qushing of the inquiry. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Suspension of the petitioner is declared to be unlawful. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. He shall be given all benefits in the matters of fixation of his pay under various pay rules, grant of grade increments and other allowances etc. He shall also be entitled to be considered for promotion if any person junior to him had been promoted in the mean-time. This entire exercise should be completed within 4 months of the dale of receipt of copy of this order. Since the respondents nave not afforded any justification for continuing the suspension of the petitioner after June 5, 1984, it is fit case in which the petitioner should get costs, which is assessed at Rs. 1,000/-Petition allowed with costs. *******