V.K. Bist, J.— Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is a Tube Well Operator Evam Village Panchayat Vikas Adhikari in Rudrapur district Udham Singh Nagar. On 18.12.2008, the petitioner was caught by the Prevention of Corruption Authorities without taking sanction of the department. Vide order-dated 30.12.2008, the petitioner was suspended from his service and departmental proceedings were initiated against him and an Inquiry Officer was appointed in this regard. The charge against the petitioner was that he was caught red handed while receiving bribe of ` 5,000/-. Consequently, a criminal case was filed against the petitioner, inter alia, under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner had earlier challenged the suspension order before this Court in Writ Petition No.1128 of 2011 (S/S). This petition was disposed of by this Court on 15.12.2011 by issuing direction to the authority concerned to decide the petitioner’s application by a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks from the date of a certified copy of the order. In compliance of the order-dated 15.12.2011, the petitioner moved an application before the authority concerned. On 02.02.2012, the respondent no.3 rejected the representation filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2008 and 02.02.2012, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after suspending the services of the petitioner, the department should have awaited the result of the criminal trial, which is pending against the petitioner and any action should be taken only after the decision on the criminal trial is made. He submitted that the appointing Authority is also of the view that the matter, which is pending before the Competent Court, the same cannot be taken cognizance in a disciplinary proceeding. He further submitted that the petitioner is presently under suspension and will continue to remain under suspension till the matter is decided by the Competent Criminal Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner was suspended from service on 18.12.2008 and the decision taken by the authority concerned on 02.02.2012, rejecting the representation of the petitioner is after a period of four years, during which the petitioner has remained suspended from his service. He submitted that in case, respondents are awaiting the result of the trial, there is no occasion for keeping the petitioner under suspension, as this is also an opinion of the Inquiry Officer. He submitted that in case, respondents are awaiting the result of the trial, there is no occasion for keeping the petitioner under suspension, as this is also an opinion of the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in such a condition, the only competent authority is the Court, which is hearing the criminal case of the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act and it is only the Court, which can take decision on this matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that suspension during service can only be done on two occasions (a) where an inquiry is contemplated against the petitioner and (b) when disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the incumbent. He argued that none of these situations presently exists and therefore, this is another reason for quashing the said order. 4. On the other hand, learned Brief Holder for the State referred to Rule 4 (2) of the Uttaranchal Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003, which reads as follows: “A Government Servant in respect of, or against whom an investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge, which is connected with his position as a Government Servant on which is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or which involves moral turpitude, is pending, may at the discretion of the Appointing Authority or the Authority to whom the power of suspension has been delegated under these rules, be placed under suspension until the termination of all proceedings relating to that charge.” 5. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule shows that there is a provision under the Rules, whereby Government servant can remain under suspension during the period where a criminal trial is pending against such a government servant. However, the necessary ingredients of said provision are that firstly it is not mandatory and it is the discretion of the appointing Authority to pass such an order, moreover, such orders can only be passed in a contingency, where the position of the government servant is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or which involves moral turpitude. However, the fact that these necessary ingredients as contemplated under Rule 4(2) of the Uttaranchal Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2003 are present in the present case has nowhere been stated in the order presently impugned i.e. order dated 30.12.2008 and therefore it cannot be said that the impugned order has been passed in exercise of powers of Rule 4 (2), as referred above. 6. There is another aspect to this matter. It is a settled position of law that a government servant who remains suspended during the pendency of an inquiry should not remain suspended indefinitely and a disciplinary proceeding initiated against a government servant must come to an end as expeditiously as possible. In the present case, firstly the petitioner has already remained under suspension for more than four years. Secondly, there is likelihood that the petitioner will remain under suspension for a further period, which is again indefinite. In such an eventuality, the suspension order dated 30.12.2008, which is presently impugned, is hereby quashed. It is, however, made clear that in case the charges against the petitioner are found proved before the trial Court, and the petitioner is convicted and sentenced under the Prevention of Corruption Act or in any other charge under the criminal law by the trial Court, the respondents shall be free to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 7. With the above observation, writ petition is disposed of. Urgency application (I.A. No.3995/ 2012) is, accordingly, disposed of. _____________