Honble TIBREWAL, J. This petition raises an important question relating to suspension of a Government Servant, where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial and also the connected question relating to prolonged suspension. It is made clear at the outset that I am not examining the matter where a Government servant is placed under suspension when a disciplinary proceedings is contemplated or is pending against him. (2). In order to appreciate the controversy, necessary facts may be set out which are not much in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as District Supply Officer in the year 1984 on his selection in Rajasthan Food and Civil Supplies Services. His initial posting was at Sikar and since 1987 he was posted at Churu. While he was working at Churu, his wife Smt. Anita committed suicide by taking some poisonous matter, where upon Crime No. 52/88 was registered against him on 27.4.88 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 304 B.I.P.C. While investigation was pending, he was placed under suspension by the State Government vide order dated, August 1, 1988 in exercise of power under Rule 13(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short the C.C.A. Rules). Suspension was made on the ground that investigation of Criminal Case U/s. 306 I.P.C. was pending against him. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner on 15.11.88 under sections 306 and 304B, I.P.C. After committal of the case, the petitioner was discharged of the offences U/Ss. 306 and 304B I.P.C. by the concerned Sessions Judge vide order dated 6.11.1989, holding that there was no basis for framing charge for these offences. However, the Court was of the view that there was material on record to proceed U/s. 498A, I.P.C., hence the case was sent back to the court of Magistrate for proceeding further. After discharge from the offences U/ss 306 and 304B, I.P.C. the petitioner made representations to the Chief Minister and the Governor of Rajasthan on 4.1.91 and 13.10.93 (Annexures 3&4) respectively drawing their attention to the aforesaid order of discharge and requested to review and revoke his suspension under changed circumstances. When nothing was done, he has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing the present petition on 10.7.95 challenging continuation of his suspension order. (3). When nothing was done, he has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing the present petition on 10.7.95 challenging continuation of his suspension order. (3). I have been informed that still charge has not been framed in the criminal case now pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Churu. (4). In their return, the respondents have not denied the factual aspect of the case, except that the representations made by the petitioner were duly considered by the authorities, but in view of the fact that he is facing trial U/s 498A I.P.C. It was not considered just and expedient to revoke his suspension. It was also pleaded inter alia that against the order dated 6.11.89 of the Sessions Judge, Churu, the matter was agitated in the High Court and record of the case remained there for a considerable period from 6.6.92 to 18.1.94 and, thereafter, the petitioner absconded from 23.7.94 to 8.8.95 and his bail bonds were forfeited. Thus, it was pleaded, that tangible progress in trial could not take place for non–cooperation of the petitioner. (5). In rejoinder, the petitioner contended that factually it was incorrect that record of the case remained in the High Court from 6.6.92 to 8.8.94, but in fact, record was sent to High Court prior to 7.12.89 and was received back from there on 23.11.94 after decision of the Revision Petitions on 6.9.94. It was also denied that petitioner remained absconding from 23.7.94 to 8.8.95. According to the petitioner, he could not appear on 18.1.95 and his bail bonds were forefeited by the trial Magistrate but, thereafter, he appeared in the Court and was released on bail on 17.4.95. The ground for non appearing in Court on 18.1.95 was stated that he was not informed of the date by his counsel. (6). Mr.Jagdeep Dhankhar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, seriously contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, continuation of suspension of the petitioner is arbitrary and unreasonable. According to the learned counsel, the alleged crime has no connection with a misconduct relating to petitioners employment or official duty. Counsel contended that there could be some ground for suspension while Criminal Case U/s 304B and 306 I.P.C. was under investigation, but once the petitioner was discharged of these offences, there hardly remains any ground for continuing his suspension. Mr. Counsel contended that there could be some ground for suspension while Criminal Case U/s 304B and 306 I.P.C. was under investigation, but once the petitioner was discharged of these offences, there hardly remains any ground for continuing his suspension. Mr. Dhankhar stressed that an order of suspension and its prolonged continu- ation should not be allowed as a matter of course, simply because some criminal case is pending under investigation or trial against the delinquent public servant and each case should be examined objectively keeping in view the nature and gravity of the alleged misconduct and evidence collected by investigating agency. In such matters, learned counsel contended, ordinarily a public servant should not be placed under suspension unless there is material to show that his holding of office would be injurious to public interest or in performance of his official duties or it would create impediment in progress of the investigation or trial or there would be likelihood or misuse of official power to win over the witnesses or otherwise to scuttle the investigation or trial. Mr. Dhankhar also contended that suspension of a public servant has always a demoralising effect on him, as his status is lowered down in the eyes of his colleagues and the public, and it effects his social reputation and status. Lastly, it was contended that the petitioner is under suspension since August 1, 1980 and more than 7 years and 3 months have passed since then, but still trial of the case has not yet commenced. He, therefore, urged that the prolonged suspension of the petitioner under the facts and circumstances is not reasonable, fair or otherwise expedient in the interest of justice. (7). The contention of Shri Maloo, learned counsel for the respondents is that Rule 13(1) of the C.C.A. Rules empowers the authorities to suspend an employee pending disciplinary proceedings contemplated or pending against him or in respect of any criminal offence under investigation or trial. In the instant case, learned counsel contended, in view of serious charges, the State Government found it expedient to suspend the petitioner and this Court should refrain from interfering in such discretionary orders. It was also contended that suspension of a delinquent employee is not a punishment and an order of interim suspension can be passed as a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or trial. Mr. It was also contended that suspension of a delinquent employee is not a punishment and an order of interim suspension can be passed as a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or trial. Mr. Maloo then, contended that at the time of passing suspension order grave allegations of dowry death an abetting his wife to commit suicide punishable under Ss. 304 B and 306 I.P.C. were on record and the State Government, considering all the facts and circumstances, rightly placed the petitioner under suspension. Even after his discharge from offences under Sections 306 and 304 B, I.P.C., the charge U/s 498 A remains against him for subjecting his wife to cruelty and this offence is of serious nature and also of moral turpitude. Learned counsel pointed out that in a year or so of the marriage, the petitioners wife has committed suicide under suspicious circumstances. For prolonged suspension, Mr. Maloo contended that petitioner is responsible for the delay and he cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong. Lastly, it was contended that the State Government has examined/re- viewed suspension order of the petitioner from time to time, but it was not found just and expedient to revoke it, hence this Court should not substitute its decision in the matter. (8). I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the above submissions. The right of the State Government to suspend an employee under Rule 13(1) of C.C.A. Rules in respect of any criminal offence under investigation or trial cannot be disputed. Rule 13 reads thus : "Suspension : (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension: (a) Where a disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial: Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the Appointing Authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the Circumstances in which the order was made." A bare perusal of the rule would make it clear that the authorities men- tioned there in, may place a Government servant under suspension where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. Sub rule (2), then, provides that a Government servant who is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding 48 hours, shall be deemed to have been suspended w.e.f. the date of detention by an order of the Appointing Authority and shall remain under suspension until further orders. Then, sub-rule (5) empowers the concerned authorities to revoke the order of suspension. (9). A careful study of Rule 13 thus, makes it clear that it is not obligatory on the part of the concerned authority to place a Government servant under suspension in the contingencies referred to in the rule. It is in its discretion to place a Government servant under suspension or not, though the discretion has to be exercised objectively with circumspection after considerating the facts and circumstances of each case. No strait jacket formula can be laid down for exercising the power of suspension. (10). It is true that suspension is not a punishment to an employee and its effect is that though an employee continiuous in service, he is not permitted to work during the period of his suspension. To suspend an employee is a recognised power of the employer. It is also true that suspension is essentially a measure in aid to disciplinary proceedings or criminal investigation or trial; and court would not normally interfere with such interim orders unless it is passed by an authority having no jurisdiction or is passed in an arbitrary manner without application of mind on all the relevant facts or is otherwise malafide exercise of power. However, this is one aspect of matter. The other aspect is that suspension of a Government servant has a serious adverse impact on his reputation and status and it always has a demoralising effect on him. The concerned authority is also expected to review the order of suspension if there is unreasonable delay in concluding the inquiry or trial. Similarly the nature of allegations, graveness of the situation, impact on the public interest and likelyhood of interference in the pending inquiry, investigation or trial are some of the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding as to whether an employee should be suspended or not. (11). Similarly the nature of allegations, graveness of the situation, impact on the public interest and likelyhood of interference in the pending inquiry, investigation or trial are some of the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding as to whether an employee should be suspended or not. (11). In U.P.Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others V. Sanjiv Rajan (1), the facts were that the delinquent employee was a Cashier of an Agriculture Market Committee and there were accusation of defalcation of huge amount against him. The charge sheet was filed after almost a year of the order of suspension. The High Court stayed the operation of the suspension order which was challenged before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. While allowing the appeal their Lordships observed : "Ordinarily, when there is an accusation of defalaction of the monies, the delinquent employees have to be kept away from the establishment till the charges are finally disposed of . Whether the charges are baseless, malicious or vindictive and are framed only to keep the individual concerned out of the employment is a different matter. But even in such a case, no conclusion can be arrived at without examining the entire record in question and hence it is always advisable to allow disciplinary proceedings to continue unhindered. It is possible that in some cases, the authori- ties do not proceed with the matter as expeditiously as they ought to which results in prolongation of the sufferings of the delinquent employee. But the remedy in such cases is either to call for an explanation from the authorities in the matter, and if it is found unsatisfactory, to direct them to complete the inquiry within a stipulated period and to increase the suspension allowance adequately. It is true that in the present case, the charge sheet was filed after almost a year of the order of suspension. However, the facts pleaded by the appellants show that the defalcations were over a long period from 1986 to 1991 and they involved some lakhs of rupees. It also appears that the authorities have approached the police and in the police investigation, the amount of defalcation is found to be still more. However, the facts pleaded by the appellants show that the defalcations were over a long period from 1986 to 1991 and they involved some lakhs of rupees. It also appears that the authorities have approached the police and in the police investigation, the amount of defalcation is found to be still more. Since the matter is of taking accounts which are spread over from 1986 to 1991 and of correlating the entries with the relevant documents, and several individuals are involved, the framing of charges was bound to take some time. The Court has to examine each case on its own facts and decide whether the delay in serving charge sheet and completing the inquiry is justified or not ." (12). In State of Orissa V. Bimal Kumar Mohanty (2), the above principles were reiterated by the Apex Court as under : "It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on appli- cation of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would be as an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court of the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of for bidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. The Court of the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of for bidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. In other words it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry etc. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by malafides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquents continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge. (13). In B.K.Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (3) a learned single Judge of this court had an occasion to consider the effect of prolonged suspension and it was observed as under : "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 employee 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 whereby 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. (14). In Ashok Gaur V. State of Rajasthan (4) a division bench of this court analysed Rule 13 of C.C.A . Rules 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. 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 servant is facing trial in criminal court he should be suspended, if he has been refused 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." (15). In every case, there should be proper application of mind before an action is taken against the Government servant for placing him under suspension." (15). In Nand Lal Verma V. State of Rajasthan & others (5) the same Division Bench again had occasion to examine the suspension order in a case where an employee was suspended on the ground that an inquiry was contemplated, but no departmental inquiry was initiated by serving a charge sheet nor a challan was filed in the criminal case for more than three years. Their Lordships observed : "The inaction of the Government for a period of more than 3 years in taking appropriate action prima facie indicates that either the Government has no material evidence to substantiate a criminal case or to prepare a charge sheet against the petitioner or the Government has no intention to proceed further in the matter and the disciplinary authorities only want to continue the suspension order as long as possible for some extraneous considerations for continuing disability or distress of the petitioner. In our opinion, there is no principle of natural justice or logic or reasonableness under which the executive could be inhibited from indefinitely placing an officer in agony and disability of suspension from his office while the question of charges is being adumbrated in a most leisurely fashion and years might elapse before a decision is taken. On the contrary an officer who is under suspension is entitled to ask the authorities concerned that the matter should be investigated with reasonable diligence and that the charge should be framed against him within a reasonable period of time. In this case, 3 years have passed still no action has been taken. Such an attitude of the Government or the authorities concerned cannot be justified. Such a delay indicates that the authorities are acting in an arbitrary manner in exercising the powers of placing an employee under suspension. When a person is put under suspension it has a disastrous impact on the fair name and good reputation that may have been earned and built up by a Government employee in the course of many years of his devotional and hard service. The damage suffered by the Government employee in the course of many years of his devotional and hard service. The damage suffered by the Government employee in the course of many years of his devotional and hard service. The damage suffe- red by the Government employee is largly irreversible because the denegration and disgrace vitiated on him by the order of suspension is seldom wiped out by his being subsequently exonerated from the blame and reinstated in service. It is therefore, expected that whenever a Government employee is required to be put under suspension, the powers of suspension should be sparingly exercised and meticulous care should be taken to examine the desirability of placing the employee under suspension bearing in mind the principles and the guidelines laid down by the Government from time to time. 9. After placing a Government employee under suspension, the Government should examine the case for continuing the order of suspension within a reasonable time and if such an action is not taken and the suspension of the Government employee is allowed to be continued without any reasonable case, and without taking active steps to institute a departmental enquiry it would reflect arbitrariness on the part of the disciplinary authority." (16). In Lajpat Rai Gonga V. State of Rajasthan (6), this court set aside the suspension order on the ground of delay in trial in absence of any allegation that the employee was likely to interfere with the trial of the case or that his retention in office was injurious to public interest. (17). We now proceed to examine the case in the light of the above pronouncements. The undisputed facts narrated in earlier part of the judgment reveal : (i) the charge levelled against the petitioner is not related to performance of his official duties ; (ii) the allegations against the petitioner lost its penetration and gravity after his discharge from the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 304B I.P.C. The petitioner was put under suspen sion for criminal offence U/s 306 I.P.C. which was pending against him and this ground was not available for continution of suspension order after his discharge from this offence ; (iii) more than 87 months have passed from the date of suspension, but still the trial of the case has not commenced, in as much as, the charge has not been framed as yet. The trial is likely to take a long time; (iv) there is no allegation or material on record to show that in case the petitioner is allowed to discharge his official duties, it would be against the public interest or it is likely to interfere in admini- stration of justice, specially, in the changed circumstances after discharge of the petitioner from the offences under Sections 306 and 304B I.P.C. (v) the petitioner has already suffered agony of prolonged suspension and its adverse effect on him and his family members. The above circumstances are very much relevant to decide whether suspension order should be continued or not. After giving careful thought, I am of the confirmed view that it would be unreasonable and arbitrary, if the suspension order is continued . Hence it deserves to be quashed and set aside. (18). I had also called for the relevant file which was made available by Mr. Maloo . After perusing the entire record, I find that the review committee has not properly examined the petitioners case for his continued suspension in light of the changed circumstances. It may also be stated here that I am not in agreement with the contention of Mr. Maloo that the delay in trial of the case was due to non – co operation of the petitioner. (19). The result of the above discussions is that this writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is hereby allowed. The continued suspension of the petitioner is declared illegal. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of this order. Petitioners pay shall be fixed by giving him benefit of annual increments for the period of suspension. For treatment of the period of suspension, 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). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost.