1. Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Asok Potsangbam, learned A.G. assisted by Mr. Nepolean appearing for the respondents. 2. The factual panorama in the writ petition is that the petitioner is a Gold Medalist in the Civil Engineering of degree course and he joined service of the Government of Manipur in the year 1980 following his appointment to the post of A.E.(Civil) in the joint cadre of PWD/IFC/PHE Manipur vide order dated 15-5-1980, a copy of which is published in the Manipur Gazette dated, Imphal, the 4th June, 1980, on the recommendation of MPSC and he continued as such till he was placed under suspension under order of the Govt. of Manipur being No. 19/87/82-W, Imphal, the 6th May, 1983 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Rule(1) of rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, contemplating a Departmental Enquiry. The Govt. of Manipur issued a Memorandum being No. 19/87/82-W, dated, Imphal September 1, 2001 for holding a Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner for the article of charges annexed to the said Memorandum. 3. Further, case of the petitioner is that the said Departmental Enquiry is not yet completed. In order to substantiate the case, the learned counsel of the petitioner refers to the decision of the Apex Court in O.P. Gupta -Vs- Union of India & Ors. reported in (1987) 4 SCC 328 wherein the Apex Court held that long continuation of suspension pending departmental inquiry is punitive and affects means of livelihood of the suspended employee. There is always “the duty to act judicially” whenever the rules of natural justice are applicable. 4. In P.L. Shah -Vrs- Union of India & Ors. reported in (1989) 1 SCC 546 , the Apex Court held that an order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person found to be guilty. It is an order made against him before he is found guilty, to ensure disposed of the proceedings initiated against him, such proceedings should be completed expeditiously in the public interest and also in the interest of the government servant concerned. It is an order made against him before he is found guilty, to ensure disposed of the proceedings initiated against him, such proceedings should be completed expeditiously in the public interest and also in the interest of the government servant concerned. Again in the Apex Court in Union of India & Ors.-vrs- Raj Kishore Parija reported in 1995 Supp(4) SCC 235 held that the employee was suspended since 1984 and the charge-sheet was served on him in the year 1988 but the enquiry was not completed. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in ordering reinstatement of the employee. The Apex Court, considering the long delay in completing the Departmental Enquiry, set aside the charges and proceedings against the concerned employee. 5. Keeping in view of the Laws laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is of the considered view that the order of the Govt. of Manipur dated 6-5-83 for putting the petitioner under suspension for more than 20 (twenty) years is punitive. Such being the situation, interference of this Court with the order of the Govt. of Manipur dated 6-5-1983 for placing the petitioner under suspension is called for. Accordingly, the said order of the Govt. of Manipur dated 6-5-1983 annexed as A/2 to the writ petition is hereby quashed and the petitioner be re-instated in service within 3(three) weeks without prejudicing the Departmental Enquiry. However, it is left to the wisdom of the Government to decide about the pay and allowances of the petitioner for the period from 6-5-1983 till his re-instatement. The whole exercise should be completed within the period of 3(three) weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. Petition is allowed.