JUDGMENT Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging his suspension order dated 20/22.4.2010 passed by the Regional Employment Officer, Aligarh, Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that there appears to have been a dispute between the petitioner’s brother Rajesh Kumar and one Malikhan son of Ishwari Singh. The allegation is that as a result of the said dispute Rajesh Kumar, brother of the petitioner was murdered and F.I.R. was lodged and the session trial is continuing and in the session trail the petitioner is complainant and his examination in chief was recorded on 4.10.2009. The allegation further is that Ram Vilash alias Pappu and one Puran, who is the real brother of the accused Malikhan son of Ishwari Singh with certain persons went to the house of Smt. Rajan Shree wife of the deceased Rajesh Kumar on 25.10.2009 and threatened her with dire consequences and also broke the cot (Charpai) and a television set and thereby tried to intimidate them so that they may not appear to give their statement in the said session trial. Ram Vilash and Puran also made enquiries about the petitioner (Malikhan Singh son of Tehsildar). On hearing the noise and hue and cry being raised, large number of persons gathered at the spot and Ram Vilash was caught by them. Smt. Rajan Shree sought to lodge an F.I.R. with the police but the police had not registered the same as a result of which Smt. Rajan Shree made a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in which the C.J.M. concerned directed for lodging the F.I.R. and accordingly the F.I.R. was registered against Ram Vilash on 8.1.2010 under Section 427, 452, 506 I.P.C. 3. The case of the petitioner further is that since he was Dewar of Smt. Rajan Shree and was doing pairvi in the murder case of his brother Rajesh Kumar, he was also implicated as an accused in case crime No. 709 of 2009 under Sections 308, 325, 323, 435 I.P.C. The petitioner was arrested on 5.11.2009. On receiving information regarding the petitioner’s arrest, furnished by the District Employment Officer, Etah, the Regional Employment Officer, Aligarh issued an order dated 14.12.2009 placing the petitioner under suspension with effect from 15.11.2008. On receiving information regarding the petitioner’s arrest, furnished by the District Employment Officer, Etah, the Regional Employment Officer, Aligarh issued an order dated 14.12.2009 placing the petitioner under suspension with effect from 15.11.2008. On 17.12.2009 the sessions Judge allowed the petitioner’s application for bail and in pursuance thereof the petitioner was released from custody. On release from custody the petitioner submitted an application to the District Employment Officer, Etah dated 19.12.2009 requesting him to sanction his E.L. with effect from 22.10.2009 to 18.12.2009 and to permit him to join the duties. The District Employment Officer passed an order on 19.12.2009 to the effect that decision on the petitioner’s representation will be taken after the decision, if any, is taken by the Regional Employment Officer, Aligarh. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2009 passed by District Employment Officer, the petitioner filed a W.P. No. 4756 of 2010 (Malikhan Singh v. State of U.P.) before this Court which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 1.2.2010 with the direction to the respondent No. 2 to pass appropriate order expeditiously considering the issue of deemed suspension of the petitioner under rule 4(ii) of the Government Servant (Discipline & Appeals) Rules, 1999, taking into notice the judgment of Apex Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Kumar, (2003) 6 SCC 516 . 5. In compliance of the order passed by this Court on 1.2.2010, the Regional Employment Officer Aligarh Division Aligarh has passed the order dated 20/22.4.2010 placing the petitioner under suspension which order is impugned in the present writ petition. 6. Heard Shri Sanjeev Kumar, holding brief of Shri Manu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State as well as perused the materials on record. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that his suspension vide order dated 19.12.2009 is illegal and arbitrary in view of the fact that he was never involved in any kind of misconduct so far as the discharge of his official duty and function was concerned but he has been placed under suspension only because of his involvement in a criminal case which was actually arising out of a private dispute between the family of the petitioner and his deceased brother Rajesh Kumar viz-a-viz the accused Ram Vilash. It is further submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 20/22.4.2010 only on the ground that the case against the petitioner under Section 308, 325, 323, 435 I.P.C. was pending before the trial Court and unless and until a decision is not received from the Court in respect of the petitioner it was necessary to keep him under suspension. 8. In the counter-affidavit filed by Shri Bhatnagar on behalf of the State dated 25.3.2011 it has been stated that the petitioner has been placed under suspension three times during his service tenure and even in respect of present suspension order, the petitioner has only been released on bail but the criminal case is still pending in Court. It has further been stated that in his application dated 19.12.2009 given to the District Employment Officer, Etah, the petitioner had not disclosed the fact that he had remained in jail and therefore, this was a clear violation of the provisions contained in the Employees Conduct Niyamawali, 1959. It has also been stated in the suspension order dated 20/22.4.2010 that the petitioner had sought leave from 22.10.2009 to 24.10.2009 in order to do the pairvi of the case pending in the trial Court but thereafter without giving any further application or information regarding the criminal trial he remained absent. The period of leave expired but the petitioner did not report for duty and concealed the material fact. It has also been stated in the order of suspension dated 20/22/4.2010 that the petitioner had disobeyed the order of departmental authority and has thus violated the provisions of Employees Conduct Niyamawali, 1959 and therefore, in these circumstances the order of suspension dated 20/22.4.2010 does not call for any interference by this Court. 9. I have considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and gone through the records of the case and find that in his application dated 19.12.2009, which has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, though the petitioner has referred to the incident of assault and damage to the property and the murder of his brother but he has not mentioned any where that he had been sent to jail and had been granted bail by the order dated 17.12.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh. There is nothing on record to indicate as to what prevented the petitioner from mentioning the fact of his confinement in jail in his application dated 19.12.2009. There is also nothing on record to indicate as to whether petitioner at any previous stage after his confinement in jail submitted any application to the competent authority mentioning this fact that he had been in judicial custody. However, standing counsel has also not brought any information on record to indicate as to whether for this misconduct on the part of the petitioner any departmental proceedings have been contemplated against the petitioner and whether any charge sheet has been issued to him or whether any enquiry proceeding is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be indefinitely kept under suspension only on account of the fact that he was involved in a criminal case arising out of a private dispute in which he had been sent to jail for more than 48 hours and that the said criminal case is still pending trial, as in my opinion the dispute relating to the criminal case was purely of a private nature and did not arise out of any misconduct committed by the petitioner in the discharge of his official duty as a Government servant. However, at the same time, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, which fact had not been disclosed by the petitioner at the first instance to his departmental competent authority and for that reason if he has been placed suspension by the order dated 20/22.4.2010, the said suspension cannot be said to be bad in the eye of law. 10. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of suspension dated 20/22.4.2010. However, respondents are directed to hold any such enquiry, as they may propose to contemplate, against the petitioner in respect of any action of misconduct under the provisions of Employees Conduct Niyamawali, 1959 and proceed to take such enquiry proceeding to its logical conclusion within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before the competent authority, failing which the suspension order dated 20/22.4.2010 shall automatically stand vacated. 11. With the aforesaid observations and direction the writ petition is disposed of. 12. There shall be no order as to cost. —————