JUDGMENT 1. - In this Writ petition it has been prayed that the order of suspension of the petitioner from service be ordered to be revoked or in the alternative respondent Government may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner under rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The petitioner who joined service as Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Rajasthan on 1.4.58 received promotion as Assistant Engineer by Government order dated, 20.3.78. His claim is that he has been working to the satisfaction of his superior officer and has discharged duties honestly and diligently. He was posted as Assistant Engineer, Irrigation, Sub-Division, Dholpur with effect from 30.8.82 and he worked on that place upto April 1985. Even before the petitioner's posting in Dholpur Sub-Division, Shri Mahadeo Prasad Gupta was working as Store Munshi in the office of the Assistant Engineer since 15.12.74. As Store Munshi he was preparing pay bills, T.A. bills, Medical bills, Pension and Gratuity bills. He used to carry these bills to the Treasury, Dholpur for getting same passed by the Treasury and he also used to get cash payment from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Dholpur Branch. Shri N.C. Avasthi worked as Assistant Engineer at Dholpur, Sub-Division prior to petitioner's posting at Dholpur. While working as Store Munshi Shri Mahadeo Prasad Gupta forged the signatures of S/Shri N.C. Avasthi and S.K. Agarwal (Assistant Engineers) and received money from State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Dholpur Branch in lieu of 8 such bills. He thus received a sum of Rs. 54894/-. After the petitioner's posting at Dholpur, he remained on leave between 11.8.83 to 9.9.83. On 10.8.83, which was Sunday, the petitioner went to Jallundhar (Punjab) in connection with the marriage of Kumari Manju Gogna, daughter of his elder brother. He remained there upto 16.8.83. The petitioner went to Bikaner on 16.8.83. He remained at Bikaner upto 8.9.83 with his family and then joined his duty at Dholpur on 10.9.83. During this period Shri Mahadeo Prasad prepared the forged bills by putting petitioner's signatures and encashed them from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Dholpur Branch. 2. He remained there upto 16.8.83. The petitioner went to Bikaner on 16.8.83. He remained at Bikaner upto 8.9.83 with his family and then joined his duty at Dholpur on 10.9.83. During this period Shri Mahadeo Prasad prepared the forged bills by putting petitioner's signatures and encashed them from the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Dholpur Branch. 2. During the period the petitioner had remained on leave, Shri S.C. Mittal, Accounts Officer of the office of Accountant General wrote a letter dated, 11.8.83 pointing out the double payments in respect of gratuity amount in the name of Smt. Krishna Devi. This letter was never received by the petitioner. Instead, it was received by Shri Mahadeo Prasad Gupta during petitioner's absence. According to the petitioner, Shri Mahadeo Prasad Gupta seems to have got the said record burnt by short circuiting the electric, connection and that is why the letter meant for the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation, Sub Division, Dholpur, was not available in that office. A copy of letter dated, 18.8.83 which was sent to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Dholpur, was sent to the office of the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division, Dholpur. The same was also received by Shri Mahadeo Prasad Gupta personally but he did not enter this letter in the receipt Register of the office of the Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division, Dholpur. 3. When Shri Ramesh Chand Gupta, Assistant Accounts Officer of the office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Dholpur, came to make an enquiry at Dholpur on 23.12.84 regarding double payments, then all these facts came to the notice of the petitioner. The petitioner then made enquiry. He recorded statement of Shri Mahadeo Prasad Gupta. He admitted to have received a sum of Rs. 1,72,565.55 which had been drawn by him by putting forged signatures of the petitioner. Shri Mahadeo Prasad Gupta also gave statement before Shri Ahsan Ahmad Chipa, Assistant Executive Magistrate and Collector, Dholpur. In that statement dated. 28.12.83 Shri M.P. Gupta deposed that he has deposited a sum of Rs. 85570/- by challan No. 233. He further stated that he will deposit the remaining amount within a period of 15 days. The petitioner lodged a report on 29.12.83 regarding this fraud. The report was made to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Dholpur. The Executive Engineer sent this report to the S.H.O. Kotwali, Dholpur. 85570/- by challan No. 233. He further stated that he will deposit the remaining amount within a period of 15 days. The petitioner lodged a report on 29.12.83 regarding this fraud. The report was made to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Dholpur. The Executive Engineer sent this report to the S.H.O. Kotwali, Dholpur. He in turn sent it to the Director, Anti-Corruption Department, Jaipur and the case was thereafter registered by A.C.D. The Anti-Corruption Department filed a challan against the petitioner in the court of Special Judge, ACD, Jaipur, on 27.3.87 on the basis of report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Government gave sanction to the A.C.D. on 30.9.86 for filing challan against the petitioner. This was done despite the fact that the Additional Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Zone, Jaipur, vide his letter dated, 13.6.86, addressed to the Dy. Secretary to the Government, Irrigation Department wrote that the petitioner was not responsible for the so-called misappropriation of public fund. He also noted that the petitioner had been in service for sufficiently long time and there was no complaint against him from any quarter. 4. After the filing of challan Government vide its order dated, 24.4.87, suspended the petitioner in exercise of power under rule 13 of 1958 Rules. The Special Judge A.C.D., framed charge against the petitioner and Shri Mahadeo Prasad Gupta under section 120 (B), 420, 467, 471 read with Section 465 and Section 477 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and the other sections. Against this order the petitioner filed petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. While dismissing the petition on 11.9.88, this Court observed that in view of the statement of co-accused Shri Mahadeo Prasad Gupta that he himself made the signatures of the petitioner, it is necessary to obtain specimen of hand writing of Shri Gupta and get the same confirmed with the alleged signatures of the petitioner on the various bills and other documents. The evidence against the petitioner is only opinion evidence and the same is confirmed by comparison of signatures of the accused Mahadeo Prasad and the disputed signatures. After making this observation the court felt that it was not a case for interference at that stage and the petitioner was left free to raise the matter as and when considered appropriate. The evidence against the petitioner is only opinion evidence and the same is confirmed by comparison of signatures of the accused Mahadeo Prasad and the disputed signatures. After making this observation the court felt that it was not a case for interference at that stage and the petitioner was left free to raise the matter as and when considered appropriate. The Court also observed that if permissible the question of the reconsideration of the charge can also be raised by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has stated that he made representations on 11.5.88, 23.8.88 and 2.9.91 for revocation of the order of suspension, but the order has not been revoked. The order of suspension has lasted for 3 years and 10 months, by the time of the filing of the petition. 6. The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension on the ground that the suspension order has been passed without application of mind. The Additional Chief Engineer had in his letter dated, 13.6.86, clearly observed that the petitioner was not at all responsible for the alleged misappropriation of the Government money. It is also the case of the petitioner that his past service, which has remained absolutely clean, has not been taken into consideration and, in any case, the suspension has continued for a period of about four years by the time of filing of the writ petition and there was no justification for such a prolonged suspension particularly when it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence of the petitioner in any manner, or his continuance on the post would be injurious to the public interest. 7. In reply to the writ petition the respondents have asserted that no doubt Shri Mahadeo Prasad Gupta was working before the posting of the petitioner, but, Shri D.C. Dubey was not posted in Irrigation Sub-Division, Dholpur, for performing other duties and there were no written orders authorising Shri Mahadco Prasad Gupta to perform the duty of preparing pay bills, T.A. Bills, Medical Bills, Pension and Gratuity Bills and Authorising him to carry these bills to the Treasury and to get the cash payment from the Bank. Posting of Shri N.C. Avasthi as Assistant Engineer in Irrigation Sub Division, Dholpur, has been admitted. Posting of Shri N.C. Avasthi as Assistant Engineer in Irrigation Sub Division, Dholpur, has been admitted. It has also been admitted that since bogus and forged bills of Pension and Gratuity were prepared between 25.8.82 to 11.9.82. It has further been stated that two bills for Rs. 9760/- were prepared on 29.9.82 and the amount was drawn from the Bank, but, it could not be verified from the Bill Register and encashment Register as to whether the bills were entered and payment was done to the concerned officers or not, because the record is not available on account of fire accident in the record room of Sub-Divisional Officer on 12.11.83. It has been admitted that the petitioner joined his duties on 8.10.82 and Mahadco Prasad Gupta had received a sum of Rs. 45,894/- during the period of two earlier Assistant Engineers. The respondents have evaded, from giving any specific reply of the allegations of the petitioner that Mahadco Prasad Gupta was responsible for all these withdrawals on the spacious plea that he is not party to the writ petition. It has also been admitted that the petitioner was on leave between 11.8.83 to 9.9.83. Regarding the statements of Mahadco Prasad Gupta (Annexures-G and H) it has been stated that these statements cannot be looked into 'and cannot be considered by the Court until and unless the concerned person is made a party to the writ petition, so that, the contents of the statement may be verified. It has then been stated that the first information report was lodged by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Dholpur, on 30.12.83, after obtaining the report from the petitioner on 29.12.83 and after investigation, challan has been filed against Mahadeo Prasad and the petitioner. Regarding the letter of the Additional Chief Engineer and statements of Mahadeo Prasad Gupta, the respondents have stated that they did not require any further comments. The case of the respondents is that the order of suspension has been passed in exercise of the powers under Rule 13(1) and this Court cannot consider the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner for the purpose of deciding this writ petition. 8. The case of the respondents is that the order of suspension has been passed in exercise of the powers under Rule 13(1) and this Court cannot consider the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner for the purpose of deciding this writ petition. 8. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner in which he has stated that, Mahadeo Prasad has been discharging duties of preparation of various types of bills and collection of money even prior to the petitioner's posting at Dholpur and he has made specific admission to this effect in his statement Annexures-G and H. The State Government has not even denied the fact that Mahadeo Prasad Gupta has deposited Rs. 89,587.10 in the State account. The petitioner has stated that neither the two Assistant Engineers nor Shri Mahadeo Prasad Gupta are necessary parties to the writ petition, because, he is not seeking any relief against them. 9. Dr. M.M. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that no cogent material was available with the respondents for invoking its power under Rule-13(1) of 1958 Rules. The petitioner has been placed under suspension without application of mind to the relevant facts; his past unblemished service for the last almost 30 years has been ignored. Likewise, the fact that the petitioner had himself made a report to the Executive Engineer, the fact that the Additional Chief Engineer had in his letter dated, 13.6.86, noted that the petitioner himself was making efforts to locate the embezzlement and the fact that Mahadeo Prasad Gupta had deposited sum of Rs. 83,587.10 in the Government account, have altogether been ignored. Dr. Tiwari argued that the continued suspension of the petitioner for a period of over four years and six months cannot, in any manner, be justified particularly, when there is no allegation or even a suggestion that the petitioner's continuance in service as Assistant Engineer is going to adversely affect the trial of the criminal case or that he is in a position to tamper with the evidence or that his holding of office will be injurious to the public interest. Dr. Tiwari drew the attention of the Court to the Government Circular dated, 21.3.91 wherein it has been impressed upon the competent authorities to review the cases of prolonged suspension. 10. Dr. Tiwari drew the attention of the Court to the Government Circular dated, 21.3.91 wherein it has been impressed upon the competent authorities to review the cases of prolonged suspension. 10. Learned Deputy Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that suspension of the petitioner was fully justified, when the Government had taken a decision to sanction prosecution of the petitioner and when a challan had been filed against him by the Anti-Corruption Department. The petitioner has been charged with the allegation of conspiring with Mahadeo Prasad Gupta with the object of defrauding the Government money. Shri Avasthi, Dy. Government Advocate, submitted that even though there might have been delay in the proceedings on account of court cases yet, there can be no justification for reinstatement of the petitioner and, even though, the case of the petitioner has been reconsidered, it has not been thought proper to reinstate him in service. 11. The undisputed facts which deserve to be summarised are that, the petitioner had joined in Irrigation Sub Division, Dholpur, in October, 1982. Prior to him S/Shri N.C. Avasthi and S.K. Agarwal remained posted there. Shri Mahadeo Prasad Gupta was, in fact, dealing with the various bills, namely, preparation, submission to the Treasury and encashment. In respect of period prior to the petitioner's posting there in an allegation against Mahadeo Prasad of misappropriation of fund worth over Rs. 45,000/-. It is also a fact that there was a fire accident in the Irrigation Sub Division Office and petitioner is not responsible for the same in any manner. The Additional Chief Engineer had specifically written on 13.6.86 that the petitioner had been taking pains in pursuing the matter of embezzlement. Mahadeo Prasad has given statements virtually accepting his guilt before Ahsan Ahmad Chhipa, Assistant Collector Cum-Executive Magistrate, Dholpur and he deposited in the Government account a sum of Rs. 83,587.10 and has stated that he had taken the money on account of loss of mental balance. Although, the respondents should have given a specific statement regarding Annexures-G and H as well as the letter of the Additional Chief Engineer, they have been totally evasive and have taken the shelter of a wholly untenable plea that Mahadeo Prasad Gupta is not a party to the petition. Although, the respondents should have given a specific statement regarding Annexures-G and H as well as the letter of the Additional Chief Engineer, they have been totally evasive and have taken the shelter of a wholly untenable plea that Mahadeo Prasad Gupta is not a party to the petition. The respondents have not disputed the statement of the petitioner which also finds corroboration from the letter of the Additional Chief Engineer that past service record of the petitioner is clean. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is likely to tamper with the evidence or influnce the trial merely if he occupies the post of Assistant Engineer. The suspension order has undoubtedly remained operative for four years and 8 months by the time the matter was heard by the court. 12. It is true that the Government has a wide discretion in exercising its power under Rule-13(1) of 1958 Rules; but, this discretion has to be exercised objectively and not arbitrarily and exercise of this discreation can certainly be made subject matter of judicial review. It is also true that the Court normally does not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Competent Authority in exercise of its power under Rule 13(1), but, if it is found that the order of suspension has been passed without application of mind or the suspension has been prolonged without any nexus with the public interest or the interest of service, the court can certainly pass appropriate order. 13. Rule-13 does not, as such, contain any guidelines for exercise of the discretion by the Competent Authority for placing Government servant under suspension. 14. The Government has from time to time, felt necessity of issuing administrative instructions to provide guidelines in the matter of suspension and departmental inquiries cause harassment and also at times results in wasteful expenditure of public funds. Therefore, the Government issued instructions containing guidance for exercise of the power under Rule 13 or such similar rule contained in 1950 Rules. All these circulars have been issued by the Appointments Department or the Department of personnel, which has the right under the Rules of Business to issue policy guidelines of general application in respect of all Government servants in different cadres of various services serving under the Government of Rajasthan. All these circulars have been issued by the Appointments Department or the Department of personnel, which has the right under the Rules of Business to issue policy guidelines of general application in respect of all Government servants in different cadres of various services serving under the Government of Rajasthan. These are Circular No. D. 2900 (F.23(18)/Apptt(A)/58 dated, 25th March 1958, Circular No. D.1168/59/F.19(27)Apptt (A.60) dated 17.8.1960 and order No. F.3 (28) Apptts/(A-1 11) 69 dated, 27.4.1970. 15. In B.K. Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 1979 (29) ILR 515 G.M. Lodha, J. (as he then was) discussed the concept of suspension and its implication at length. That was a case of prelonged suspension, and the observations made by the Court are extremely important. Learned Judge observed: "It should not be forgotten that suspension has got adverse implication as it has serious demoralising effect on a civil servant, as he is looked with contempt amongst his brother employees and also in the society. It is expected of the State functionaries that they should resort to it only when the case and the subject matter of charge-sheet, which is being enquired into is extremely of serious type where by permitting a civil servant to work during that period would result in serious impediment in the inquiry itself or any other adverse effect in the department. In other words, there must be compelling reason for the disciplinary authority, which of course, cannot be tested on the test of objectivity by the courts, but, it should be of such serious magnitude that the disciplinary authority should feel compelled to take extreme step of suspension. Suspension should not be made a rule and should be used sparingly, cautiously and with great restraint." 16. In Ashok Gaur v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 (2) RLR 63 : 1987 (5) SLR 547 , a Division Bench of this Court analysed Rule 13 and also the extent of power of suspension and then held: "From the above discussions, it is apparent that an order of suspension should not be passed by invoking power under Rule 13 simply because a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated, or criminal case is under investigation or trial against Government servant. The Appointing Authority has to exercise 'his discretion in this regard. A Government servant may be put under suspension in the contingencies referred to above. The Appointing Authority has to exercise 'his discretion in this regard. A Government servant may be put under suspension in the contingencies referred to above. If there are reasons to believe, on the basis of the material available at the time of initiation of proceeding, that he may be guilty of gross misconduct or corruption which, if approved, will lead to dismissal or removal, he may be suspended even if the suspension is likely to continue for a longer period, or where there are reasons to believe that a Government servant if allowed to continue in active service, might tamper with the evidence he may be suspended or, in cases Government is facing trial in criminal court he should be suspended, if he has been reused bail and committed to prison." It was then observed : "This rule cannot be taken to confer arbitrary powers upon the Appointing Authority to place a Government servant under suspension simply because a petty case of no importance is pending investigation or trial against a Government servant. While exercising power under Rule 13, in our opinion, the Appointing Authority must apply its mind and see whether it would be in the interest of the Government or in the interest of public at large to place the Government servant under suspension and the circumstances so warrant to place the Government servant under suspension. In every case, there should be proper application of mind before an action is taken against the Government servant for placing him under suspension." 17. In Nand Lal Verma v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 (1) RLR 601 , the same Division Bench made the following observations : "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 temperary 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. 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." 18. From the above quoted decisions it can be deduced that even in cases where the Government servants are involved in criminal cases, the power of suspension is to be exercised cautiously and carefully. In the present case, the Government had apparently not taken into consideration the important fact that Mahadeo Prasad Gupta has admitted that he had withdrawn the money from the Bank and he has deposited a part of the money in the Government fund. True it is that with the registration of criminal case, sanction by the Government and filing of challan may have weighed with the Government in passing the order of suspension; but, taking into consideration all the undisputed facts to which reference has been made hereinabove, there can be no justification for continuing the suspension of the petitioner for over four years and 8 months. The respondents have completely failed to offer any valid justification for continuance of suspension of the petitioner for such a long time, even though it is not even an allegation of the respondents that the petitioner is likely to interfere with the trial of the case or that his retention in office is injurious to public interest. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of suspension for over 56 months by now. The petitioner has already suffered the agony of suspension for over 56 months by now. The respondents ought to have reconsidered the case of the petitioner objectively and revoked the order of suspension. I do not find any legal justification for continuing the petitioner under suspension even now. 19. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. The continued suspension of the petitioner is declared illegal. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service w.e.f. the date of this order. The petitioner's pay shall be fixed by giving him benefit of the annual increments for the period of suspension in the light of the decision of this Court in Kan Singh Bhati v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 (1) RLR 111 . So far as the question of treatment which should be meted out to the period of suspension is concerned, it will be open to the Government to decide the same after conclusion of the trial or departmental proceedings, if any, which the Government may like to take against the petitioner. 20. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******