Judgment :- N. K. JAIN, Actg. C.J. The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 23-9-96 as well as the subsequent order dated 26-8-97 passed by the first respondent. 2. It is alleged that the petitioner had favoured two companies while opening the sealed tenders on 15th and 16th October, 1994. Petitioner was suspended on 23-9-1996 invoking Rule 3(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. It is also alleged that the petitioner's representation was not considered. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner has moved O.A. No. 529/97 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 11-6-1997, directed the respondents to consider the representations. It is further alleged that the representations were rejected without due application of mind, by passing a non-speaking order. 4. The petitioner again approached the Tribunal by way of filing O.A. No. 991/97. While considering the said appeal, it was found that the investigation is at the final stage and observing that at least thereafter the respondents should act expeditiously and see that the chargesheet is filed by the investigating agency at an early date, the said O.A. was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the observations of the order of the Tribunal, nothing has been done. He further submitted that the investigation is not completed, it is further submitted that no charge-sheet has been filed so far, nor the said fact has been reviewed by the competent authority, as the extension order of the period of suspension was not served on him till date. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that by notification dated 13-7-1998, by way of an amendment to the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, the Government have prescribed the outer limit of the period of suspension as 90 days and an order extending the order of suspension as 180 days at a time. It is submitted, that the petitioner remains suspended in the garb of pending notification for more than two years and in violation to the notification. Therefore, he submitted that the suspension, after the required period as per the notification, has become invalid and liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, reiterating the averments made in the counter-affidavit, submits that the investigation is going on and the suspension is bona fide. Therefore, he submitted that the suspension, after the required period as per the notification, has become invalid and liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, reiterating the averments made in the counter-affidavit, submits that the investigation is going on and the suspension is bona fide. It is also submitted that it is not a case of disciplinary enquiry. Learned counsel further submits that the investigation pertaining to RC 15(A)/96-MAS has been completed and the case in RC 48(A)/96-MAS, though was registered in the year 1996, has not yet been completed and the matter is still pending with C.B.I. It is further submitted that the amendment vide notification, mentioned above, cannot be attracted to this case, as the said notification came into effect only in July, 1998 whereas the order of suspension is of prior date. In such circumstances, it is prayed that no interference is called for. 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. No doubt a Government servant can be suspended in contemplation of an enquiry/investigation, Generally this Court will not interfere in the suspension order, as an order of suspension is not a punishment. But at the same time, one cannot be kept in suspension for an indefinite period, in the garb of pending enquiry/investigation, in criminal proceedings. It is also true that merely delay in investigation will not ipso facto set aside the suspension. However, each case depends upon the facts of its own. In the instant case despite the order of the Tribunal dated 16-12-1997, directing to expedite the investigation, investigation is completed only in one case as alleged, the charge sheet has not been filed yet, and in another case, investigation is pending, as mentioned above. 9. A perusal of the notification, which came into effect from the date of its publication i.e. 13-7-1998, reveals that the suspension order remains valid for a period of 90 days and an order which has been extended shall remain valid for a further period not exceeding 180 days at a time. The respondents have also not communicated the special circumstances for not initiating disciplinary proceedings, allowing the continuance of the suspension order, beyond the period stipulated. 10. The respondents have also not communicated the special circumstances for not initiating disciplinary proceedings, allowing the continuance of the suspension order, beyond the period stipulated. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show that the competent authority has considered and reviewed that continuance of the suspension is necessary and has not communicated the extension of any such suspension order to the petitioner, to that effect, after the orders of the Tribunal, nor after the publication of the new notification, despite time granted earlier by this Court. 11. Considering the facts that the petitioner is placed under suspension for the last 21/2 years and as discussed above, and in view of the notification, the continuance suspension of the petitioner will become invalid and the same cannot be continued. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case without going into the merits of the case, and in view of legal position as statee. We are of the view that under the facts and circumstances of the given case, the order of suspension, impugned herein, cannot continue and the same is liable to be revoked. The orders dated 23-9-1996 and 26-8-1997 are set aside to this extent. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated into service within one week from today. However, the reinstatement will be subject to the result of the investigation and the enquiry. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs. WMP No. 2010 of 1998 is dismissed.