JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, a Fund Clerk, in Devasthan Department was booked in a criminal case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, thus, by the order dated 12.2.2001 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan Department, Udaipur he was placed under suspension. On 8.3.2004 the petitioner submitted a representation to the Commissioner, Devasthan Department with assertion that his suspension is undesirable and the same deserves to be revoked. The Commissioner, Devasthan Department vide order dated 18.6.2004 revoked the suspension but under an order dated 12.3.2008 the Commissioner, Devasthan Department placed the petitioner again under suspension in view of the fact that a sanction to prosecute him was granted by the competent authority vide order dated 23.4.2007. Being aggrieved by the order of suspension aforesaid, this petition for writ is preferred. 2. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner at the first instance was placed under suspension on 12.2.2001 on being booked in a criminal case pertaining to the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but the suspension aforesaid was revoked by the Commissioner, Devasthan Department under an order dated 18.6.2004 after due application of mind, as such, merely on the count of the grant of sanction to prosecute him he cannot be placed under suspension ipse dixit. 3. Per contra, the stand of the respondents is that the competent authority has granted sanction for prosecution of the petitioner for several criminal offences (including the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), therefore, to save public confidence in public service the suspension of petitioner under the order dated 12.3.2008 is highly desirable. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. As per Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1958') the appointing authority of a Government servant or the authority to whom the appointing authority of the Government servant is subordinate or the authority empowered to do can place a Government servant under suspension in the event of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, contemplation of disciplinary action or on lodging of a criminal case against him. The suspension of the petitioner, therefore, at the first instance under the order dated 12.2.2001 was in accordance with law and the petitioner accepted the same. By submitting his representation he claimed that his further retention under the suspension was undesirable, being prolong one. The competent authority i.e. the Commissioner, Devasthan Department considered representation submitted and looking to the existing circumstance choose to revoke the same under an order dated 18.6.2004. After a lapse of about four years he has been again placed under suspension on 18.3.2008 on being grant of sanction for his prosecution. 6. It is well settled that suspension of a Government servant is required to be made as an interim measure to prevent tempering with of evidence or other material that may be connected with the ongoing enquiry or probe or if is facing criminal charges of serious nature and his continuation in service may shake public confidence in public service. In the instant matter, the petitioner was placed under suspension in the year 2001 as he was facing criminal charges. The suspension remained in currency for good four years. The competent authority after considering the representation given by the petitioner revoked the suspension. The only difference now came into existence is that necessary sanction as per Section 19 of the Act of 1988 has been granted by the competent authority. The competent authority in such circumstance while placing the petitioner under suspension was suppose to consider as to whether fresh suspension was really warranted to maintain public confidence in public service or to avoid apprehension of tampering with evidence and other relevant material necessary for the trying the petitioner instead of doing so the suspension of petitioner under the order impugned has been made ipse dexit only on the grant of sanction by the competent authority for prosecution of the petitioner. The same view was taken by this Court in Subhash Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2345/2011) decided on 3.9.2012, wherein it was held that:- "The suspension of an employee, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may be desired urgently or on emergent basis but in those circumstances also the competent authority must record its satisfaction for exercising powers under Rule 13. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2345/2011) decided on 3.9.2012, wherein it was held that:- "The suspension of an employee, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may be desired urgently or on emergent basis but in those circumstances also the competent authority must record its satisfaction for exercising powers under Rule 13. If such satisfaction is not recorded and suspension is made merely on basis of the instructions given in circulars or merely by a word of mouth or by slip of pen, then that is nothing but colourable exercise of power". 7. In the instant matter too the competent authority while passing the order impugned has not applied independent mind to assess and examine the need of suspension as made under the order impugned. The order impugned as a matter of fact has been passed ipse dixit as a consequent to grant of prosecution sanction. The order impugned, thus, for the reasons given above is bad. 8. The writ petition, therefore, deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The order of suspension dated 12.3.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Devasthan Department is declared illegal and, therefore, the same is quashed.Petition allowed. *******