JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time served as District Welfare Officer is aggrieved by the notification of the State Government bearing Memo No. 3102 dated 24.7.2009 (Annexure-3) where under he has been placed under suspension for his involvement in the scholarship scam with direction to receive suspension allowance in the light of the provisions contained in Rule 10 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the notification placing the petitioner under suspension is wholly arbitrary and violative of the C.C.A. Rules 2005 inasmuch as the proceeding having been initiated under Rule-55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 under resolution of the Government bearing No. 1814 dated 16.4.2004 should be continued in terms of the old rules in the light of the provisions contained in repealing Clause or the 2005 Rules i.e. sub-rule (5) of Rule 32 of the CCA. Rules, 2005 and the suspension order ought not to have been issued with reference to the provisions of 2005 Rules. In this background, it is submitted that the impugned notification even if issued with reference to Rule 9 of the 2005 Rules does not attract the ingredients of Rule-9 for placing the Government servant under suspension. In the present case, the departmental proceeding was initiated in 2004 under resolution of the Government bearing Memo No. 1814 dated 16.4.2004 (Annexure-1) and at the time of initiation of the proceeding petitioner was not placed under suspension. The Enquiry Officer has since submitted his report in 2006 but the authorities without considering the report even after passage of more than two years of the receipt of the report have proceeded to place the petitioner under suspension which is wholly arbitrary and the suspension order is indicative of non-application of mind by the authorities to the facts of the case. 4. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State, I direct the petitioner to request the State Government to reconsider the suspension order dated 24.7.2009 (Annexure-3) on the grounds noted above as early as possible in any case within two months from the date of receipt of the representation and if the State Government is not inclined to reconsider the matter, the learned Principal Secretary of the Department should pass a reasoned order within the same time from the date of receipt of the representation. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.