JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for B.N. Mandal University. 2. By the impugned order dated 24.7.2003 petitioner was again placed under suspension after his release from jaii on account of a case under the Arms Act. The order mentions that petitioners suspension will be till conclusion of the criminal case against him and petitioner will be paid subsistence allowanced during the period of suspension. The decision in respect of his full pay shall be taken after the conclusion of the criminal case. 3. Petitioner has challenged the continued suspension on the ground that the disposal of the criminal trial may take long time and petitioner has already remained under suspension pursuant to impugned order for more than five years. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court some judgments of this Court as reported in the case of Ajay Kumar Jha vs. State of Bihar, 2000(1) PLJR 227 and in the case of Jitendra Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 2005(3) PLJR 350 to submit that continued suspension for a long period even on account of pendency of a criminal case has not been favoured by this Court and in the case of Ajay Kumar Jha, this Court made a distinction between a criminal case wholly unconnected with the performance of duties by a Government Servant and a criminal case relating to performance of duties. 5. In that case the Court considered several facts and circumstances including the fact that no action was taken to suspend the Government employee for almost three years and four months and thereafter he was placed under suspension under Rule 100 of the Bihar Service Code. The Court also observed that the criminal case was not a case of serious nature and is perhaps on account of personal disputes due to partition of properties. 6. There is no hard and fast rule in deciding cases of suspension on the basis of some glaring facts. A criminal case wholly unrelated to official duties of a Government Servant and not being of serious nature so as to raise a question of moral turpitude may not be sufficient to warrant continued suspension for long period, However, no uniform yardstick can be applied in such matters. Each case must be decided on its own facts. A criminal case wholly unrelated to official duties of a Government Servant and not being of serious nature so as to raise a question of moral turpitude may not be sufficient to warrant continued suspension for long period, However, no uniform yardstick can be applied in such matters. Each case must be decided on its own facts. In the present case, the petitioner is a Lecturer in the Department of English of a College at Saharsa. According to FIR he was the Patron of an organization whose premises were raided by the police leading to recovery of large amount of firearms and equipments for manufacturing of firearms. 7. Considering that petitioner is supposed to teach young students at College level and the nature of criminal case pending against him, this Court is of the view that the criminal case involves a serious issue of moral turpitude in respect of petitioner and hence this Court is not inclined to interfere with the suspension. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 8. Petitioner must, however, be paid his subsistence allowance in proper scale in accordance with law. If the amount of suspension allowance requires enhancement as per Statutes, petitioner must be paid the enhanced subsistence allowance.