Judgment : By consent of both parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final hearing. The petitioner filed the above writ petition for certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in his suspension order No.V & Sec.4 (4)/88, dated 15. 1988 and to quash the said impugned order of the second respondent and consequently direct the respondents to pay the backwages and other service benefits to the petitioner within the time to be stipulated. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade-Ill (A.G.III) under daily wages in the category of physically handicapped on 10. 1975. He was confirmed on 1. 1976 as A.G.III. While he was working in the Food Corporation of India at the Office of the Joint Manager (Port Operations), certain investigations were made by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Madras and statements were obtained from the petitioner and three other persons, alleged to have been involved in the case and based on the investigation, the petitioner and three others were suspended on 15. 1988 by the second respondent. The second respondent also obtained a statement from the petitioner and others promising that the disciplinary action would be taken and finalised within a short span of time. The second respondent also gave a complaint on 25. 1988 to the C.B.I. As per the first information report, the amount said to have bene embezzled by the petitioner and others is only Rs. 1,099.38, and the probable forged medical claim was estimated at Rs.39,000. It is further submitted that the involvement of the petitioner is only with reference to the findings of the criminal conspiracy. The petitioner has sent several reminders requesting the respondents to revoke the order of suspension. It is also stated that the criminal case which was initiated in the year 1989 is not yet over and no progress has been made at all in the trial. According to the petitioner, the criminal case has not yet started and no charge sheet has been filed. It is also the case of the petitioner that no departmental enquiry was initiated against him and charges have not so far been framed. According to the petitioner, the criminal case has not yet started and no charge sheet has been filed. It is also the case of the petitioner that no departmental enquiry was initiated against him and charges have not so far been framed. Therefore, it is contended by Mr.Balaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of suspension and the continuance of the same amount to improper exercise of jurisdiction and oppose to the constitutional safeguard guaranteed to the petitioner and the petitioner is a physically handicapped person and has got a family to be supported by him and the continuation of the suspension for such a long period of more than 8 years affects him in every aspect of life and the respondents being the authorities cannot act to the detriment of their employee and the continuation of suspension in the petitioner’s case is violative of the fundamental rights under Art.21 of the Constitution of India. 3. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit. The case was argued by Mr.P.B. Krishnarnurthy on behalf of the respondents’ Corporation. It is contended that criminal case has been registered in Crime No.66 of 1989 on the file of the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Madras under Secs.l20-B read with 420, 419,426, 477-A, Indian Penal Code and under Sec.5(2) read with 5(1 )(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the proceedings are in progress. It is also stated that the case before the Sessions Court has not reached the advance stage and in fact the C.B.I. and the Food Corporation of India had pleaded for an accelerated trial of the accused. It is, therefore, con- tended that in view of the pendency of the criminal case before the Sessions Court, the suspension of the petitioner is within the frame work of the rules which were made by the Food Corporation of India. It is also submitted that it is a fact that the suspension of the petitioner had been prolonged, but the prolongation was not the action or inaction of the Food Corporation of India. This apart, it is contended that inasmuch as the prosecution before the Sessions Court has been launched by the C.B.I., the respondent cannot take a suo motu action for revoking the suspension of the petitioner and any action taken by the respondents in respect of the criminal prosecution is to be consistent with that of the Central Bureau of Investigation. This apart, it is contended that inasmuch as the prosecution before the Sessions Court has been launched by the C.B.I., the respondent cannot take a suo motu action for revoking the suspension of the petitioner and any action taken by the respondents in respect of the criminal prosecution is to be consistent with that of the Central Bureau of Investigation. Lastly, it is contended that as per the provisions contained in the rules, the petitioner has already been given the benefit of wage revision and the petitioner has also been given the benefit of such wage revision till the date of suspension viz., 15. 1988 as contemplated in the Vigilance Manual and having received the benefits of wage revision till the date of suspension, the petitioner cannot now make an allegation differently and since the petitioner has been paid the maximum subsistence allowance of 75% of his wages as contemplated in the regulations, the petitioner can have no genuine grievance. In regard to the suspension, it is contended that the suspension cannot be revoked at this stage. 4. I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents. It is seen from the records that Crime No.66 of 1989 was filed before the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Madras for the offences under various Sections of law in the year 1989. Admittedly, no progress has been made. Therefore, ‘the pendency of the criminal case before the Sessions Court cannot be a bar for the respondents to revoke the order of suspension against the petitioner and permit him to work and earn. There is is no justification at all on the part of the respondents in placing the petitioner under suspension for a period of more than 8 years on the only ground that the criminal case is pending before the Sessions Court. It is true that the word ‘suspension’ means action of debarring or state of being debarred especially for a time from a function or state of being kept inoperative for a time. By reason of the suspension, the person suspended does not lose his office nor does he suffer and reduction in work. He only ceases to exercise the powers and to discharge the duties of the office for the time being. However, the court also cannot forget that the order of suspension causes great mental agony to the person concerned. By reason of the suspension, the person suspended does not lose his office nor does he suffer and reduction in work. He only ceases to exercise the powers and to discharge the duties of the office for the time being. However, the court also cannot forget that the order of suspension causes great mental agony to the person concerned. The suspended employee suffers from a sense of degradation in the eyes of his colleagues, friends and relations. In the case of an employee who is exonerated of his charges in a departmental proceeding or who, if prosecuted in a criminal charge, is acquitted of his criminal charge, he is entitled to payment of full pay and allowances for the entire period of his suspension even though he did not do any work for the period. It is true that the power of suspension not by way of punitive action but to keep an officer out of the sphere of action is a substantive power and it is not dependent on the enquiry on the charges and the result flowing from the enquiry. It does not mean that the person can be kept under suspension indefinitely on the ground that the criminal prosecution is pending. The arguments of Mr.P.B. Krishnamurthy that the petitioner is getting the maximum subsistence allowance and therefore he is not deprived of his income, cannot at all be a ground from keeping the petitioner under suspension for an indefinite period. The management can utilise the services of the petitioner by allowing him to work and earn his monthly salary. I am therefore of the view that the petitioner need not be kept under suspension indefinitely even though the criminal case registered against him is pending for so many years. In the circumstances, the impugned order suspending the petitioner is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The respondents shall immediately permit the petitioner to report for duty. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.