Judgment : 1. The writ petition has been tiled by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceeding issued in Roc. No. 22585 of 2008/dated 24.10.2008 passed by the respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined in service as Working Inspector in the year 1991 under the respondent and was promoted as Draftsman and later on promoted as Junior Engineer. Subsequently, the Municipal Administration by an order dated 2.5.2008, placed the petitioner under suspension vide by the impugned proceeding in Roc. No. 22585/08/OP3. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the order of this Court in the writ petition, the respondent passed an order in Roc No. 22585/2008/OP3 dated 24.10.2008 whereby rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein. In the writ petition, the petitioner has raised the various grounds. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that a criminal case had been filed against the petitioner, under the provisions to Vigilance and Anti Corruption Act. On the ground of pendency of criminal case and based on serious charges, the petitioner was suspended. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision rendered by this Court in W.P. No. 30114 of 2008 dated 19.12.2008 and order dated 9.8.2010 made in W.P. No. 17213 of 2010, submitted that in view to the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner be considered to be reinstated in service pending disposal of the criminal case. On the departmental proceedings, as per the copy of the judgment passed in W.P. No. 30114 of 2008 dated 19.12.2008, one B. Gopanna, writ petitioner therein was charged under Rule 17(B) of Tamil Nadu Discipline Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, similar to Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955. As contended by the petitioner, it is seen that in the above said case, the petitioner was placed under suspension, as the case was registered by the Director to Vigilance and Anti Corruption. The petitioner therein was placed under suspension on 22.11.2007, as per G.O. Ms. As contended by the petitioner, it is seen that in the above said case, the petitioner was placed under suspension, as the case was registered by the Director to Vigilance and Anti Corruption. The petitioner therein was placed under suspension on 22.11.2007, as per G.O. Ms. No. 40, Personnel and Administration Reforms (N) Department, dated 30.1.1996, para (viii) and (ix), there is provision for reconsideration of suspension order and to find out whether the continued suspension is necessary in public interest. Para (viii) and (ix) of G.O. Ms. No. 40, Personnel and Administration Reforms (N) Department, dated 30.3.1996 reads as follows: “ (viii) When the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion suo motu or after conclusion of the investigation by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption. the disciplinary authority shall, while initiating action by issue or charges under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal.) Rules, as the case may be, examine with reference to the facts established, which form the basis for the charges, whether public interest or the needs of further proceedings will require continued suspension of the Government servant already under suspension. (ix) The time limits mentioned above will not be applicable to cases of Government servants against whom Criminal proceedings have been initiated. However, while sanctioning prosecution in such a criminal case, an examination similar to the one mentioned in item (viii) above shall be made by the competent authority. ” 5. In the light of the G.O. Ms. No. 40, Personnel and Administration Reforms (N) Department, dated 30.1.1996, this Court directed the respondent therein to consider the order of suspension and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 6. As per the order passed in W.P. No. 17213 of dated 9.8.2010, another Bench of this Court passed similar orders. The petitioner therein had been placed under suspension, on account of his arrest and detention by the Inspector of Vigilance and Anti Corruption in pursuance of a trap case on 3.7.2006. Though the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 18887 of 2009 was dismissed by a learned single Judge, by an order dated 27.11.2009. The petitioner therein had been placed under suspension, on account of his arrest and detention by the Inspector of Vigilance and Anti Corruption in pursuance of a trap case on 3.7.2006. Though the writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 18887 of 2009 was dismissed by a learned single Judge, by an order dated 27.11.2009. The said order was modified by a Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 18.12.2009 made in W.A. No. 1851 of 2009 and granted liberty to the petitioner to seek a review of the order of suspension in accordance with law. However, the same was rejected by the order dated 16.7.2010 on the ground that the criminal case was pending against the petitioner and it could not be possible to revoke the order of suspension. The petitioner therein filed a subsequent writ petition in that case charge sheet was already filed in March, 2008. As a period of more than four years had lapsed from the date to suspension, considering the prolonged suspension without any end in respect of the pendency to the criminal case, learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the first respondent to reconsider the order dated 16.7.2010 and examine if the petitioner could be posted anywhere else without detrimental to the criminal case pending against him and to find (sic) out the possibility whether the petitioner could be reinstated, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also produced a consequential order passed by the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai-8, in his proceedings No. E6/21856/07 dated 22.11.2007 wherein the order passed in W.P. No. 30114 of 2008 was also referred to and as per the sale order, the suspension is revoked and the petitioner therein was reinstated in service. 8. In the instant case, the petitioner was suspended on 2.5.2008 in view to the criminal case pending, before Criminal Court and it is also a case filed by the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and the departmental enquiry vitiated against the petitioner is not over. It is a settled proposition to law that there is no bar in proceeding with the department enquiry, pending the criminal case. The petitioner herein was suspended on 2.5.2008. It is a settled proposition to law that there is no bar in proceeding with the department enquiry, pending the criminal case. The petitioner herein was suspended on 2.5.2008. At this juncture, I find it just and reasonable to refer the universal declaration of human rights whereby everyone shall be presumed innocent, until the guilt is proved against him, as per procedure known to law in a public trial. The same has been incorporated in India in various Articles, including Article 21 of the Constitution of India and speedy trial is also a fundamental right guaranteed under the . It is the duty of the respondent to take steps to expedite the criminal case and to complete the departmental proceeding, in accordance with law. Keeping petitioner under prolonged suspension for more than two years cannot be justified and further, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while on suspension, the petitioner is entitled to 50% of his salary for 90 days subsistence allowance and now, he is entitled to the entire salary, without any work, which is not disputed by the Additional Government Pleader. Permitting a person for getting salary without any work is against the public interest. Instead of paying the entire salary, without extracting any work, it would be just and proper to reinstate the petitioner in service and even transfer him to any station without detrimental to the criminal case pending against him. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the decisions rendered by this Court, I find it just and reasonable to dispose the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service within a period of four week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the result of the Departmental Proceeding and the criminal case pending against him. 9. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.