Judgment :- Petitioner is a Lower Division Clerk now working at the Mechanical Division, Kerala Water Authority at Palarivattom. He was placed under suspension by Ext. P9 order dated 27.10.1995 based on a Government Letter No. 39345/F2/95/LAD dated 14.9.1995. By the above mentioned letter, the Government directed the Kerala Water Authority to place the petitioner under suspension, since a criminal case has been registered against him. The Kerala Water Authority immediately responded and passed Ext. P9 order under Rule 10(i) (b) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, placing the petitioner under suspension pending detailed investigation by the Vigilance Department. Petitioner challenges the validity of the said order contending that it is not mandatory on the part of the respondents to suspend the petitioner merely because a criminal case has been registered against him by the Vigilance Department. 2. While working as Lower Division Clerk in the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Water Works Sub Division, petitioner was placed under suspension by Ext. P1 order dated 19.8.1988. The charge levelled against the petitioner was that while he was working as Lower Division Clerk he made a short remittance of Rs. 1000/-. It was revealed that the total collection was Rs. 1735/-. It is on the basis of the above mentioned charge that he was suspended. According to the respondents, it was also revealed that petitioner had misappropriated an amount of Rs. 6,160/-. However, the said amount was remitted by the petitioner on 18.8.1988. A further detailed audit was conducted by the Internal Audit Wing of the Kerala Water Authority and as per their report, the total amount misappropriated by the petitioner was assessed to Rs.55,853.80. Even after a lapse of more than 21/2 years no steps were taken to complete the disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, petitioner approached this Court and filed O.P. No, 4182 of 1991. The Original Petition was disposed of by mis Court on 10.4.1991 directing the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings on or before 15.7.1991 failing which it was ordered that petitioner would he reinstated in service without prejudice to (he continuance of the disciplinary proceedings. It is stated that the second respondent vide his letter No. 9753/88/WAS/Vig. dated 2.5.1991 had addressed the petitioner to remit Rs. It is stated that the second respondent vide his letter No. 9753/88/WAS/Vig. dated 2.5.1991 had addressed the petitioner to remit Rs. 58,853.80 within a period of seven days, subject to finalisation of the actual' amount of loss sustained by the Authority, and without prejudice to the 'disciplinary action and detailed enquiry. The disciplinary proceedings were not finalised and consequently on the basis of the judgment of this court in 6. P. No. 4182 of 1991, petitioner was reinstated in service by Ext. P3 order dated 15.7.1991. 3. The Managing Director of the Kerala Water Authority vide his letter No. KWA7 HO/E6/14859/90 dated 12/91 had addressed the Director of Vigilance for a detailed investigation of the case. In the meantime, petitioner remitted an amount of Rs. 55,6487 - on 7.3.1995, with a request to drop the disciplinary proceedings. The Chief Engineer reported that major portion of the loss has already been recouped with the remittance of money by the petitioner. The outstanding amount is Rs. 1589/- and this is related to the alleged irregularities on the part of another person. However, since the misappropriated amount is, more than Rs. 10,000/- the case was referred to the Director of Vigilance Investigation through Government and the case is under the detailed investigation of the Vigilance Department. It is under the above mentioned circumstances, the Government vide letter dated 14.9.1995 directed the Water Authority to place the petitioner under suspension since a criminal case is registered against him. 4. The charge levelled against the petitioner was with respect to the incident which happened in the year 1988. This Court directed the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings on or before 15.7.1991. But the same was not completed. Consequently, petitioner was reinstated. The Managing Director addressed the Director of Vigilance, Investigation, only in December, 1991. Vigilance conducted a preliminary 'enquiry in the year 1992 and Crime No.1 of 1995 was registered under S.5(2) read with S.5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 403,409 and 477(A) of the IPC on 20.6.1995 against the petitioner and another person. After registering the case, the Director of Vigilance, Investigation, addressed the Government to transfer the petitioner out of Ernakulam District for a fair investigation of the case. However, the Government vide letter dated 14.9.1995 directed the water authority to place the petitioner under suspension since a crime is registered against him. 5. After registering the case, the Director of Vigilance, Investigation, addressed the Government to transfer the petitioner out of Ernakulam District for a fair investigation of the case. However, the Government vide letter dated 14.9.1995 directed the water authority to place the petitioner under suspension since a crime is registered against him. 5. When the matter came up for hearing, I heard learned Government Pleader. Learned Government Pleader made available to me a letter dated 13.7.1995 issued by the Director of Vigilance to the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Vigilance Department, as well as letter dated 14.9.1995 issued by the Secretary to Govt. Local Administration (F) Department to the Managing Director, Kerala Water Authority. It is' evident from the said documents that the Vigilance Department only recommended transfer of the petitioner out of Ernakulam District for a fair investigation. In other words, the Vigilance Department never wanted the petitioner to be kept under suspension for the purpose of investigation. It is not as if in every case the moment a case is registered against a government servant, he should be placed under suspension. Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules authorises the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf to place a Government servant under suspension, where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial or if the appropriate authority considers that in the then prevailing circumstances it is necessary in public interest that the Government servant should be suspended from service. It is therefore evident that the suspension is not automatic. The appropriate authority has to apply his mind as to whether a Government servant should be placed under suspension or not taking into consideration the then prevailing circumstances and also public interest. In the instant case, the Vigilance Department wanted the petitioner to be transferred out of Ernakulam District and not to be suspended. The Government as well as Kerala Water Authority have not applied their mind whether the petitioner should be kept under suspension in public interest or to facilitate the investigation. 6. The Supreme Court had occasion to lay down guidelines to be followed in placing a Government servant under suspension in the decision in State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanly, (1994) 4 SCC 126. 6. The Supreme Court had occasion to lay down guidelines to be followed in placing a Government servant under suspension in the decision in State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanly, (1994) 4 SCC 126. It was held 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 application 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 not be 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 or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. 7. It is evident in the instant case there is total lack of application of mind by the Government as well as Kerala Water Authority in issuing Ext. P9 order of suspension. In fact, the petitioner was already kept under suspension for more than 21/2 years by Ext. P1 order of suspension. He was subsequently reinstated pursuant to the judgment of this Court in O. P. No. 4182 of 1991. The Supreme Court in the decision in O. P. Gupta v. Union of India, A. I. R.1987 SC 2257 has taken the view that the order of suspension, unless the departmental inquiry is concluded within a reasonable time, affects the Government servants injuriously. The very expression 'subsistence allowance' has an undeniable penal significance. 8. In the instant case, taking into consideration the fact that the Vigilance Department has only requested for transfer of the petitioner out of Ernakulam District for a fair investigation, there is no justification in issuing Ext. P9 order suspending him from service. Investigating authority never wanted the petitioner to be suspended from service for a fair investigation. 8. In the instant case, taking into consideration the fact that the Vigilance Department has only requested for transfer of the petitioner out of Ernakulam District for a fair investigation, there is no justification in issuing Ext. P9 order suspending him from service. Investigating authority never wanted the petitioner to be suspended from service for a fair investigation. Considering the fact that petitioner has already been kept under suspension for more than 21/2 years for an incident which happened in the year 1988, and the fact that the petitioner remitted the loss sustained by the Government, and that the Vigilance Department only wanted the petitioner to be transferred, I am of the view that Ext. P9 cannot be sustained. I therefore, quash Ext. P9 reserving the right of the Government to proceed with the Vigilance investigation in accordance with law. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Original Petition is allowed as above.