Sudhir Agarwal, J.;- 1. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.9.2009 passed by District Commandant placing the petitioner under suspension. 2. It is contended that impugned order nowhere shows that departmental enquiry is contemplated or pending. Petitioner has also filed supplementary affidavit stating that no charge sheet has been served upon him till date and no departmental proceeding has been initiated so far. 3. The order of suspension pending in a contemplated inquiry by itself is not a punishment but in case it is prolonged without initiation or completion of inquiry, it may become punitive with the passage of time. Whether such a prolonged suspension can be held valid and justified and whether the respondents can be allowed to keep an employee under suspension for an indefinite period is the moot question need to be answered in this case. The answer is an emphatic no. 4. This question has already been answered by this Court in Smt. Anshu Bharti Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009(1) AWC 691 and in paras 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 this Court has observed as under: "9. . . . . . The prolonged suspension of the petitioner is clearly unjust and unwarranted. The question deals with the prolonged agony and mental torture of a suspended employee where inquiry either has not commenced or proceed with snail pace. Though suspension in a contemplated or pending inquiry is not a punishment but this is a different angle of the matter, which is equally important and needs careful consideration. A suspension during contemplation of departmental inquiry or pendency thereof by itself is not a punishment if resorted to by the competent authority to enquire into the allegations levelled against the employee giving him an opportunity of participation to find out whether the allegations are correct or not with due diligence and within a reasonable time. In case, allegations are not found correct, the employee is reinstated without any loss towards salary, etc., and in case the charges are proved, the disciplinary authority passes such order as provided under law. However, keeping an employee under suspension, either without holding any enquiry, or in a prolonged enquiry is unreasonable. It is neither just nor in larger public interest. A prolonged suspension by itself is penal. However, keeping an employee under suspension, either without holding any enquiry, or in a prolonged enquiry is unreasonable. It is neither just nor in larger public interest. A prolonged suspension by itself is penal. Similarly an order of suspension at the initial stage may be valid fulfilling all the requirements of law but may become penal or unlawful with the passage of time, if the disciplinary inquiry is unreasonably prolonged or no inquiry is initiated at all without there being any fault or obstruction on the part of the delinquent employee. No person can be kept under suspension for indefinite period since during the period of suspension he is not paid full salary. He is also denied the enjoyment of status and therefore admittedly it has some adverse effect in respect of his status, life style and reputation in society. A person under suspension is looked with suspicion in the society by the persons with whom he meets in his normal discharge of function. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in Gajendra Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 2004 (3) UPLBEC 2934 observed as under : "We need not forget that when a Government officer is placed under suspension, he is looked with suspicious eyes not only by his collogues and friends but by public at large too." 11. Disapproving unreasonable prolonged suspension, the Apex Court in Public Service Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. & others 2003 (1) UPLBEC 780 (SC) observed as under : "If a suspension continues for indefinite period or the order of suspension passed is malafide, then it would be open to the employee to challenge the same by approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution........................(Para 26) 12. The statutory power conferred upon the disciplinary authority to keep an employee under suspension during contemplated or pending disciplinary enquiry cannot thus be interpreted in a manner so as to confer an arbitrary, unguided an absolute power to keep an employee under suspension without enquiry for unlimited period or by prolonging enquiry unreasonably, particularly when the delinquent employee is not responsible for such delay. Therefore, I am clearly of the opinion that a suspension, if prolonged unreasonably without holding any enquiry or by prolonging the enquiry itself, is penal in nature and cannot be sustained. 13. Therefore, I am clearly of the opinion that a suspension, if prolonged unreasonably without holding any enquiry or by prolonging the enquiry itself, is penal in nature and cannot be sustained. 13. The view I have taken is supported from another Judgment of this Court in Ayodhya Rai & others Vs. State of U.P. & others 2006 (3) ESC 1755." 5. Further, a perusal of the order of suspension impugned in this writ petition nowhere shows that an enquiry is in contemplation or pending warranting suspension of the petitioner in the present case. The question whether such an order of suspension would be valid, came up for consideration before a Division Bench in Meera Tiwari (Smt.) Vs. Chief Medical Officer & others 2001 (3) UPLBEC 2057 wherein it was held as under : "3. From the said rule it appears that a Government Servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry. The impugned order of suspension does not refer to any contemplated inquiry or the fact that any inquiry is pending. 4. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the order of suspension is against the provisions of Rule 4 of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1999 and the same cannot be sustained.........." 6. A similar dispute came up for consideration before another Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 180 of 2007 Hari Shanker Misra Vs. State of U.P. & others decided on 27.2.2007 in which, following the judgment in Meera Tiwari (supra), the suspension order was set aside since it was nowhere mentioned therein that the order of suspension was passed either in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings or pendency thereof. The same view has also been adopted by another Division Bench (in which I was also a member) in Radhey Shyam Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & others 2008 (1) ADJ 466 . 7. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order of suspension dated 7.9.2009 (Annexure 1 to writ petition) passed by respondent no. 2 is hereby quashed. 8. This order, however, shall not preclude the respondents to initiate the departmental proceeding, if any, pending or contemplated, against the petitioner.