JUDGMENT - P.C.:---Heard both the learned Counsel; Mr. Dalvi for the petitioner and Mr. Parshurami, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2.In view of the limited controversy raised before us, the matter was adjourned twice to enable Mr. Parshurami to obtain the instructions and, if necessary, to file an affidavit-in-reply. He has obtained the instructions, but no affidavit-in-reply has been filed. 3.Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith and heard Counsel. 4.The petitioner, who was working as a Civil Surgeon at Akola was initially suspended under an order dated 28th July 1995 as a result of some allegations of financial irregularities in the matter of purchases of medicines. However, by order dated 11th January 1996 (Exh. A/pg. 13) the order of suspension was revoked by the State Government. There was no progress in the departmental inquiry and again on 7th August 1996 (Exh. C/pg. 15) a fresh order of suspension has been passed placing the petitioner under suspension. It is this order which is challenged before us in this writ petition. 5.Mr. Dalvi for the petitioner has invited our attention to the repeated Circulars issued by the State Government by order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra. The first Circular dated 18th September 1974 is at Exhibit "E"/pg. 21. It states that the order of suspension causes great hardship to a Government servant and in order to avoid undue hardship it is essential to ensure that the period of suspension is reduced to the barest minimum. The Government, therefore, directed that the investigation should be completed and charge-sheet should be filed, wherever necessary, within a period of six months. If it is not possible to complete the investigation, extention should be obtained from the Chief Secretary for a period of three months. If it was not possible to complete the investigation even in the extended period, the order of suspension should be revoked and the Government servant should be permitted to resume the duties, may be at a different station. As far as the present case is concerned, there is no criminal prosecution contemplated and we are concerned only with a departmental inquiry. Similar instructions have been reiterated in the second Circular dated 25th February 1988 at Exhibit "F" Colly./pg. 23. As far as the present case is concerned, there is no criminal prosecution contemplated and we are concerned only with a departmental inquiry. Similar instructions have been reiterated in the second Circular dated 25th February 1988 at Exhibit "F" Colly./pg. 23. The last Circular on the subject is of the 14th June 1996 at Exhibit "F" Colly./pg.26, which is a clarification to the earlier Government Resolution dated 14th December 1995. 6.Mr. Parshurami fairly stated, on the basis of the instructions received by him, that it was as far back as on 18th August 1997 that the State Government had taken a decision to complete the inquiry within a period of three months. The period of three months expired on 18-11-1997. It is unfortunate that even the appointment of the Inquiry Officer was not made before the expiry of the said period of three months, The Inquiry Officer was appointed as late as on 4th December 1997, says Mr. Parshurami. This, in our view, show the total indifference on the part of the Government in adhering to its own decision taken on 18th August, 1997 to complete the inquiry within a period of three months. 7.Be that as it may, the petitioner had challenged the order of suspension before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 658 of 1997. The petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal delivered on 24-11-1993 in Original Application No. 516 of 1991 where on account of delay in completing the inquiry, the order of suspension was revoked by the tribunal. Unfortunately, the tribunal did not refer to the said decision, nor did it consider the Government Circulars, to which its attention was invited. On the ground that the inquiry contemplated was also against some other Government servants, the tribunal came to the conclusion that there was nothing illegal concerning the charges and, under the circumstances, no ground was made out for interfering with the order of suspension. It is this order dated 29-1-1998 passed by the tribunal which is also challenged before us in the present petition. 8.While we do not wish to interfere with the departmental inquiry where a Government servant has been charged with financial irregularities, the question is as to how long should the suspension continue in the face of the State Government's policy, as reflected in the three Circulars viz. 8.While we do not wish to interfere with the departmental inquiry where a Government servant has been charged with financial irregularities, the question is as to how long should the suspension continue in the face of the State Government's policy, as reflected in the three Circulars viz. (i) dated 18th September 1974; (ii) 25th February 1988; and (iii) 14th December 1995, as clarified on 14th June 1996. This Court had occasion to consider a similar question in (Khushal Janbaji Gaidhane v. State of Maharashtra and others)1, 1986 Maharashtra Law Journal, pg. 235. Even where investigation was pending for offences punishable under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, this Court took the view that in view of the Circular issued by the State Government on 18th September 1974 the order of suspension beyond the permissible period of nine months was not justified in Khushal Gaidhane's case, who was under suspension for about 17 months and this Court set aside the order of suspension and allowed the writ petition. 9.In the present case, the petitioner was initially suspended on 28-7-1995. After a period of nearly six months, the order of suspension was revoked on 11th January 1996. For the very same charges, he has been again suspended on 7th August 1996 and is under suspension till today for more than 18 months. No case is made out that the petitioner has, in any manner, delayed the progress of the departmental inquiry or that the petitioner was himself responsible for the delay in the said inquiry. No case is made out that any permission was obtained from the Chief Secretary for extention of the period of suspension. On the contrary, Mr. Parshurami fairly pointed out that on 18th August 1997 the Government itself had decided to complete the inquiry within a period of three months, despite which the Inquiry Officer was appointed after the period of three months was over, that is to say on 4th December 1997. 10.In the circumstances, we find no justification for continuing the petitioner under suspension, whatever may be the fate of the inquiry against him. As indicated above, we express no opinion on the merits of the departmental inquiry. We are only concerned with his continued suspension. In the view that we have taken, the order of suspension dated 7th August 1996 (Exh.C/pg. As indicated above, we express no opinion on the merits of the departmental inquiry. We are only concerned with his continued suspension. In the view that we have taken, the order of suspension dated 7th August 1996 (Exh.C/pg. 15), as also the order passed by the tribunal on 29-1-1998 (Exh.H/pg.35) are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated forthwith to a post to which he is entitled. Needless to say that the State Government is free to post him wherever it thinks fit and proper having regard to the fact that inquiry is pending against him. 11.Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. *****