Honble TIBREWAL, J. – On 7th September, 1995 notices of the writ petition were issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the petition may not be admitted and disposed of. (2). In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order of suspension dated August 16, 1995 passed by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, in contemplation of a departmental enquiry. More than 13 months have already passed but still the petitioner has not been served with a charge sheet and no explanation has come from the side of the respondents for the delay. It is contended by the learned counsel that two Junior Engineers namely. Shri Tej Singh and Shri V.K. Gupta were also put under suspension for the same charge but their suspension orders have been revoked. I pointedly asked the learned counsel for the respondents if he is in a position to explain the delay for not initiating the departmental enquiry against the petitioner by furnishing charge sheet but he is unable to give any explanation. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the charge against the petitioner is that during the floods in District Bharatpur, in the year 1995, the petitioner was the Incharge of Ajan Dam and instead of supervising he left the place without any information with the result that the dam was over flew and some damages were also caused in the dam. (3). I would not like to express any opinion so far the merits of the case are concerned and if the petitioner was wilfully negligent in discharging his official du- ties during the hour of need it may be serious lapses and misconduct on his part. The question which is before me is whether the petitioner should be allowed to remain under suspension for indefinite period without initiation of departmental enquiry. (4). This Court and the Apex Court of the Country have been expressing repea- ted that no government servant be kept under suspension for longer periods specially without any enquiry. As already stated, the petitioner is under suspension for the last more than 13 months but still the enquiry has not been initiated by furnishing a charge sheet to him. (4). This Court and the Apex Court of the Country have been expressing repea- ted that no government servant be kept under suspension for longer periods specially without any enquiry. As already stated, the petitioner is under suspension for the last more than 13 months but still the enquiry has not been initiated by furnishing a charge sheet to him. The authority having competence to initiate departmental enquiry is expected to be vigilant that no public servant is kept under suspension without initiation of a departmental enquiry for an indefinite period without any cause and explanation. In the present case, the disciplinary authority has failed to discharge its duty. Consequently, I have been left with no option but to set aside the impugned suspension order. (5). In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of sus- pension dated 16.8.1995 (Annexure 3) is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated immediately. In relation to the salary for the suspension period, if charge sheet is submitted within six months from today, the matter shall be decided by the disciplinary officer while passing the final orders. In case charge sheet is not submitted within six months from today then the petitioner shall be entitled to get salary of the suspension period with all allowances in accordance with law.