ORDER In the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, inter alia, prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to recall, withdraw and rescind the order of suspension dated September 15, 1984 which is annexure 'D' to the petition and to allow the petitioner to join duty with all arrears of salaries and benefits. Although the facts involved are very lengthy and volumes have been written both in the writ petition as also in the affidavit-in-opposition, yet the point for decision is rather short and it is not necessary to refer to all the factual aspects of the matter for a decision on the points in issue. It is sufficient to refer to the barest minimum of facts to decide the points in issue in the application. 2. The petitioner at the relevant time was the Manager (Commercial) of the Khardah Unit of the National lute Manufacturers Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the company, a Government of India undertaking. 3. The petitioner was the Functional Head of the Commercial Department and was working under the General Command of the Executive Director. His duties did not entail any handling of cash or payment or receipt of money but consisted principally of : a) Purchasing/procuring raw jute and settling claims; b) selling finished goods and delivering goods in time and c) raising bills on the parties for the goods delivered as 'incoming finance' or 'revenue finance'. The petitioner had no financial responsibilities with the accounts of the company and he was not the passing authority of any bills/vouchers for payment by realisations of funds. The said responsibility was entirely that of Financial Controller. 4. On or about July 25, 1984 the Senior Accounts Officer of the company detected some fraud committed in preparation of petrol bills which prompted the authorities to check all vouchers involving large amount and it was found that certain money receipts in respect of railway freight payments were interpolated and inflated by Sri Pradip Kumar Mallick, the Accounts Clerk who prepared the railway freight vouchers. The Executive Director and Chief Financial Controller were informed of the fact of fraud by the Senior Accounts Officer and case No. 608 was flied before the Hare Street Police Station on August, 1, 1984. The defalcated amount ultimately rose to the staggering figure of rupees eleven lakhs approximately. 5. The Executive Director and Chief Financial Controller were informed of the fact of fraud by the Senior Accounts Officer and case No. 608 was flied before the Hare Street Police Station on August, 1, 1984. The defalcated amount ultimately rose to the staggering figure of rupees eleven lakhs approximately. 5. On the basis of the First Information Report, Accounts Officer Sri M.K. Das, an Upper Division Clerk of the Commercial Department who was working under the writ petitioner was arrested and the other Upper Division Clerk in the accounts section Sri P.K. Mallick against whom the allegation of interpolation was made took anticipatory bail. Thereafter, the documents relating to the circumstances leading to the detection of the fraud were prepared by the Chief Financial Controller in consultation with the writ petitioner. 6. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated August 16, 1984 against the Chief Financial Controller himself, the Accounts Officer and the writ petitioner. The charge against the petitioner was one of mere negligence and not of actual participation in the fraud. The negligence consisted of not verifying properly the documents prepared by Sri Bimal Das of the Commercial Department which led to the fraud. Thereafter, we can omit certain episodes in the matter. Suffice it to say that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of suspension but the appeal was dismissed with a very cryptic order without referring to the memorandum of appeal. The petitioner also filed a reply to the charge-sheet on or about February 15, 1985 which is annexure 'G' to the petition. But no Enquiry Officer has yet been appointed nor the disciplinary proceeding has been continued till this date i.e., 1992. 7. It may be mentioned here that the enquiries against the other employees who were chergesheeted along with the writ petitioner were held and completed in due time. The Chief Financial Controller Sri R.N. Dutta and Sri Bimal Das, Upper Division Clerk who were the main accused in the departmental proceeding were exonerated while Sri Pradip Kr. Mallick was punished with an order of dismissal from service and the authority did not take any step against other officer. Sri N K. Das who was also chargesheeted. 8. The Chief Financial Controller Sri R.N. Dutta and Sri Bimal Das, Upper Division Clerk who were the main accused in the departmental proceeding were exonerated while Sri Pradip Kr. Mallick was punished with an order of dismissal from service and the authority did not take any step against other officer. Sri N K. Das who was also chargesheeted. 8. As has been mentioned above no enquiry has yet been held against the petitioner in respect of charges levelled against him but instead the authorities filed a civil suit in September, 1986 in the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court claiming that the Child Financial Controller, the writ petitioner and the others were responsible for the damages caused to the company. This filing of the civil suit is curious, inter alia, inasmuch as the Chief Financial Commissioner has been cleared by the authorities of his possible involvement of fraud and so far as the petitioner is concerned if money is claimed for a civil suit it amount to finding him guilty of the charges without bringing the disciplinary proceeding against him to its logical consequence and presuming that the petitioner was involved in the fraud. This filing of the suit, inter alia, against the petitioner points to the fact that the petitioner has been involved in the fraud and as such damage from him is claimed in the suit. 9. The petitioner wrote to the authority concerned to hold the enquiry against him but the authorities for the reasons best known to them has not yet held the enquiry against the petitioner. The plea of the authority is that the Central Bureau of Investigation has filed a criminal case against the writ petitioner and the enquiry proceeding must wait till the completion of the criminal proceeding. The stage of the criminal proceeding is yet at its infancy and only two out of 58 witnesses proposed to be examined have been examined in course of four years but they are yet to be cross examined. It is anybody's guess as to when the said criminal proceeding, if ever, will be completed. At the pace at which toe criminal case is proceeding it may take as many as 20 years to be completed whereas the petitioner will retire within 4 to 5 years from date. It is anybody's guess as to when the said criminal proceeding, if ever, will be completed. At the pace at which toe criminal case is proceeding it may take as many as 20 years to be completed whereas the petitioner will retire within 4 to 5 years from date. The position is this that if the petitioner retires then the disciplinary proceeding cannot be continued against him as has actually happened in the case of Sri N. K. Das who is also under criminal trial and who has retired from service. It may also be mentioned that Sri N.K. Das was held guilty of the charges levelled against him in the disciplinary proceeding but could retire with full benefits before any action could be taken against him. It appears that the petitioner will be stuck up till the date of his retirement as there is less then a slim chance of the criminal proceeding being completed before his imminent retirement within 4 or 5 years. 10. In the circumstances, it appears that the order of suspension itself amounts to a penalty without trial as he has already spent 8 years in penury and infamy, shunned by his own men, shunned by his colleagues, shunned by all and sundry. 11. Owing to the prolonged suspension the petitioner has already lost huge sums of money as he was getting a mere subsistence allowance during the entire period. He has been denied all chances of promotion and the annual grade increments which has aggravated his penury. In fact he has shunted out to an impecunious exile from the main stream of activity in service. His juniors have been promoted and are in fact earning higher salaries than the petitioner. 12. Considering the entirety of the circumstance it appears that even though the order of suspension might have been a good order at its inception yet its undue prolongation cannot be justified specially in the circumstances that the authorities concerned have virtually abandoned the idea of initiating/continuing the disciplinary proceeding in question. There is no indication in the pleading that the authority concerned is likely to recommence the disciplinary proceeding in near future and it is, as already observed, anybody's guess as to when the criminal case will be completed. There is no indication in the pleading that the authority concerned is likely to recommence the disciplinary proceeding in near future and it is, as already observed, anybody's guess as to when the criminal case will be completed. As the criminal case is not likely to be completed before the date of retirement of the petitioner there is no chance of the disciplinary proceeding being recommenced before the retirement. 13. Considering all these circumstances, the order of suspension cannot be allowed to stand any longer. Whether the period undergone on suspension by the petitioner will be treated as such or as on duty will depend upon the result of the criminal case. Incidentally it may be stated that the respondents have not been able to show any rule as to whether during the pendency of a criminal proceeding an employee of the company can be kept under suspension. There is another aspect of this matter namely, keeping an employee under suspension beyond a reasonable period of time entails huge financial loss of public money inasmuch as the––company has to spend the subsistence allowance without getting any work from the employee concerned. 14. For the reason stated above the order of suspension dated September 15, 1984 is hereby set aside with immediate effect and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to resume duty forthwith. The departmental proceeding is also hereby set aside in view of the fact that there is no immediate prospect of continuance of the said proceeding and for its undue prolongation. Evidence may have been lost in the meantime. 15. There is one other thing to consider before we part with this case that is whether during the period spent on suspension the petitioner is entitled to the annual grade increments. In the case of O. P. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 2257 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held that when there is no occasion to protract the departmental enquiry and to keep the employee under suspension for a very long number of years it may be presumed that it was an act actuated with mala fide intention of subjecting the employee to harassment. Even if the charge is very serious that is no reason for keeping the departmental proceeding alive for a long period without revoking the order of suspension. Even if the charge is very serious that is no reason for keeping the departmental proceeding alive for a long period without revoking the order of suspension. The effect of keeping the employee under suspension for an inordinate length of time deprives him from getting the normal increments and promotions and that in certain circumstances may itself amount to a penalty. 16. A reference may also be made to the case of P.L. Shah v. Union of India and Anr. reported in AIR 1989 SC 985 . In paragraph 6 of the said decision Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have been pleased to observe inter alia, that an order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guilty. It is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceeding initiated against him. Such proceeding should be completed expeditiously in the public interest and also in the interest of the Government servant concerned. From the nomenclature of the allowance it is clear that the amount paid to such a Government servant should be sufficient for bare subsistence in this world in which the prices of necessaries of life are increasing everyday on account of the conditions of inflation obtaining in the country. It is further to be noted that the suspended employee cannot engage himself in any other activity during the period of suspension. The amount of subsistence allowance payable to the suspended employee concerned should, therefore be reviewed from time to time where the proceeding drags on for a long time, even though there may be no express rule insisting on such review. In doing so authority concerned no doubt, has to take into account whether the suspended employee himself is in any way responsible for the undue delay in the disposal of the proceeding initiated against him. If the employee is not responsible for such delay or even if he is responsible for such delay to some extent but is not primarily responsible for it, it is for the employer to reconsider whether the order of suspension should be continued or whether the subsistence allowance should be varied to his advantage or not. 17. In fact many of the different High Court of India have accepted the view that undue prolongation of an order of suspension can never be justified. 17. In fact many of the different High Court of India have accepted the view that undue prolongation of an order of suspension can never be justified. In this connection reference may be made to the cases of Gopal Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 1991(1) Current Labour Reports 86 (para 5), Puma Ch. Mishra v. State of Orissa & Anr. reported in 1990 (60) Indian Factories and Labour Reports (Summary) Orissa High Court page 22, Kan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 1999(1) Current Labour Reports 138 (Rajasthan High Court Division Bench) and Subramoniam v. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in 1973(1) SLR 521 (Kerala). In the case of Kan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra) the Rajasthan High Court has held that even during the period a person is kept under suspension he will be entitled to the annual grade increment and the subsistence allowance should be calculated accordingly. 18. From a discussion of the aforesaid case laws it appears that the petitioner should be given all his annual grade increments during the period of suspension and the subsistence allowance is to be recomputed accordingly. The subsistence allowance will also have to be recomputed on the principle that the petitioner was not responsible for the undue prolongation of the period of suspension nor did the petitioner stall the disciplinary proceeding in any way. 19. In conclusion the petition succeeds and is allowed. The following order is passed:- 20. The order of suspension and the pending disciplinary proceeding are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to resume duty forthwith. The subsistence allowance during the period spent on suspension is to be recomputed by giving the petitioner the benefit of the annual grade increments and by reviewing the quantum of subsistence allowance on the ground that the petitioner is in no way responsible for prolonged departmental enquiry. The arrears becoming due on such re-computation is to be paid within ten weeks from the date of communication of the order. Whether the period spent on suspension will be treated as such as on duty will abide by the result of the criminal proceeding. There will be no order as to costs. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the operative portion of the judgment on the usual undertaking. Whether the period spent on suspension will be treated as such as on duty will abide by the result of the criminal proceeding. There will be no order as to costs. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the operative portion of the judgment on the usual undertaking. Order of suspension and the disciplinary proceeding quashed; directions given to the respondents.