1. Petitioners in writ petitions on hand, face trial in case FIR no. 10 of 1993 Police Station, VOK under sections 420, 467, 472, 120-B RPC, Section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, before Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Srinagar for their alleged role in large scale embezzlement of government funds in Rural Development Department, District Anantnag. Petitioners in SWP no. 1317/2006, after the aforesaid case was registered were initially dismissed from service. Their challenge to dismissal from service in a writ petition, succeeded whereafter they vide Government Order No. 143-GAD of 2004 dated 29.01.2004 though reinstated were retrospectively placed under suspension with effect from the date of their dismissal. However, petitioners in SWP no. 1409/2009 were vide Govt. Order No. 675-GAD of 1993 dated 12.08.1993 placed under suspension and attached with the office of Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir. 2. The trial remains to be concluded and the trial Court is yet to return a finding on their alleged involvement in, what is commonly known as "Anantnag Scam", and the charge framed against each of them. They during pendency of trial have retired on superannuation. However, they have not been allowed the retiral benefits till date. They, therefore, are caught in a situation where they are not in a position to sustain themselves in old age, and provide for their families. The retiral benefits due to them, would be the only source of sustenance for them and their families and without pensionery benefits otherwise due to them, except for their alleged involvement in the aforesaid case, they and their families are left high and dry without any source to fall back upon. 3. The grievance voiced in the writ petition no. 1317/2006 is two fold. In the first place, petitioners complain that their other colleagues facing trial like petitioners on a similar charge before Special Judge (Anti Corruption) Srinagar, have been reinstated, promoted and even allowed all retiral benefits, while petitioners have been singled out for discriminatory treatment. Secondly, it is contended that the respondents after their reinstatement, lacked power to place them under suspension retrospectively with effect from 25.06.1993. 4. Petitioners in SWP no. Secondly, it is contended that the respondents after their reinstatement, lacked power to place them under suspension retrospectively with effect from 25.06.1993. 4. Petitioners in SWP no. 1317/2006 on the grounds urged in the petition seek following relief:- a) A writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents: (i) to implement the judgment of Full Bench of the High Court dated 05.09.2003 in letter and spirit by settling the case of the petitioners for release of full pensionery/terminal benefits in terms of rules and release all the due arrears in favour of the petitioner without any delay or hindrance. (ii) to release the withheld amount of salary (1/4th) and also release the remaining arrears of full pay and allowances, for the intervening period w.e.f; 25.06.1993 to 29.01.2004, which has been allowed to the similarly situated employees who have been reinstated and provided full benefits of salary, allowance and pension, without any deductions. (iii) to release all the withheld amounts of pension (with amount commutable under rules), gratuity and leave salary etc, within a period of one month. (iv) to provide equal opportunities to the petitioners in respect of promotions/induction into KAS and other higher services/posts to the petitioners alongwith other employees who have been promoted during the period of their suspension as the order has been already quashed by the Hon'ble Court. (v) to take disciplinary action against the officers/officers responsible for deliberately circumventing and bypassing the Court orders while processing and passing the impugned order dated 29.01.2004. (vi) to pay adequate amount of compensation to the petitioner for the ordeal they have faced due to the illegal and harsh actions of the respondents, the compensation being quantified to the tune of Rs.10.00 lacs for each petitioner. b) A writ of Certiorari for quashing the Govt. Order No. 143-GAD of 2004 dated 29.01.2004 to the extent it contravenes, defeats and circumvents the judgment of Full Bench of the High court dated; 05.09.2003 by treating them to have been reinstated retrospectively from the date of suspension. 5. Petitioners in SWP no. 1409/2009 are aggrieved with the Government Order No. 439-GAD of 2009 dated 24.03.2009 whereby the respondents have declined to settle the petitioners period of suspension, as on duty on the ground that the petitioners are yet to be exonerated by the Trial Court. 5. Petitioners in SWP no. 1409/2009 are aggrieved with the Government Order No. 439-GAD of 2009 dated 24.03.2009 whereby the respondents have declined to settle the petitioners period of suspension, as on duty on the ground that the petitioners are yet to be exonerated by the Trial Court. They on the strength of the averments in the petition seek: a) A writ of: (i) Certiorari quashing Government order No. 439-Gad of 2009 dated 24.03.2009. (ii) Mandamus commanding the respondents to settle the period of suspension as on duty and to release pay arrears, gratuity, pensionery benefits, leave salary etc. with interest @ 12% from the date of accrual of the withheld benefits till final realization." 6. Respondents oppose the writ petition on the ground that Government Order No. 143-GAD of 2004 dated 29.01.2004 has been issued in compliance of judgment dated 05.09.2003 whereby petitioners dismissal has been set aside, leaving it open to the respondents to hold departmental enquiry against them and take a decision as regards intervening period depending upon outcome of the enquiry. Government Order No. 143-GAD of 2004 dated 29.01.2004, the respondents point out, reinstates the petitioners with effect from 25.06.1993 i.e. the date of dismissal and thereafter places them under suspension with effect from the date of the dismissal order. The respondents insist that the suspension pending disposal of criminal proceedings falls within the ambit of their powers under Rules and cannot be questioned by the petitioners on the grounds urged in the writ petition. It is denied that the petitioners have been exposed to any hostile discrimination. 7. The respondents in reply to the writ petition SWP no. 1409/2009 defend Government Order No. 439-GAD of 2009 dated 24.03.2009, called in question in the writ petition, on the ground that the Government Order is in conformity with Rules. It is pleaded that the petitioners cannot have their period of suspension settled unless and until the criminal proceedings against them come to an end and that such period can be settled only in light of the Trial Court judgment. 8. I have gone through the pleadings as also the record available on the file and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. The fate of petitions on hand hinges on answer to following questions:- (i) Whether it was permissible for the respondents to place petitioners in SWP no. 8. I have gone through the pleadings as also the record available on the file and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. The fate of petitions on hand hinges on answer to following questions:- (i) Whether it was permissible for the respondents to place petitioners in SWP no. 1317/2006 under Government Order No. 143-GAD of 2004 dated 29.01.2004 retrospectively under suspension with effect from 25.06.1993 and thereby deprive the petitioners of their right to get retiral benefits on their retirement on superannuation, during pendency of the trial. (ii) Whether it is open to the respondents to indefinitely place a government servant under suspension, thereby depriving him of right to discharge the functions attached to the office held by him and have access to the amenities available to him, before such suspension, till he retires on superannuation and thereafter get retiral benefits, otherwise due to such government servant. (iii) Whether the government is free to discriminate amongst the government servants, facing trial on same charge, reinstate and favour some of the suspended employees with promotion and retiral benefits while refusing to reinstate their similarly circumstanced colleagues or allowing retiral benefit to retired employees. 10. Suspension is not a punishment. It is a tool in the hands of an employer to keep an employee away from usual function of his office, pending an enquiry into misconduct alleged against him. The purpose is to ensure a fair, objective, dispassionate and transparent enquiry, uninfluenced either by the employer or the employee. In case, a government employee against whom allegation of misconduct is levelled, is allowed to discharge his usual functions/duties, he may have access to official record likely to be perused and even relied upon by the Enquiry Officer looking into the misconduct alleged against the government employee. It may also not be safe to entrust work to an employee against whom misconduct is alleged. Suspension may also become imperative to maintain discipline. 11. The government employee on his suspension does not cease to be a member of service. He continues to be in service, though temporarily asked not to discharge his usual duties. It may also not be safe to entrust work to an employee against whom misconduct is alleged. Suspension may also become imperative to maintain discipline. 11. The government employee on his suspension does not cease to be a member of service. He continues to be in service, though temporarily asked not to discharge his usual duties. As the government servant, in wake of his suspension, is not to discharge any functions, he is paid only an allowance called "subsistence allowance" representing 50% of his basic pay for six months from the suspension period and thereafter 75% of basic pay in case the enquiry/criminal trial is not concluded within six months and for one or the reason gets delayed beyond such a period. The suspension does not, however, mean a holiday for a government employee. Though he may not attend his office to discharge his official duties during suspension period, yet he during suspension period has to remain present at the place of his posting or any other office to which he is attached. In the present case, the petitioners in SWP no. 1317/2006 have been attached to the office of Divisional Commissioner. The employer, where an employee is placed under suspension, is duty bound to ensure that enquiry into the alleged misconduct of such employee is concluded with proper dispatch, so that the employee is not exposed to prolonged pain and agony that he suffers because of his suspension. 12. Rule 31 J&K (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 deals with the subject under discussion. It delineates the powers of the authority competent to place a government servant under suspension and the circumstances in which suspension may be ordered. Rule 31 is required to be noticed. It reads:- "31. (1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in this behalf, may place a Government servant under suspension where:- (a) an inquiry into his conduct is contemplated or is pending; or (b) a complaint against him of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. (2) A Government servant who is detained in custody either on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period longer than forty eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended by the appointing authority under his subordinate. (2) A Government servant who is detained in custody either on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period longer than forty eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended by the appointing authority under his subordinate. (3) An order of suspension under sub-rule (1) may be revoked at any time by the authority making the order or by any authority to which it is subordinate. (4) Where a penalty of dismissal or removal from service imposed upon a Government servant under suspension is set aside in appeal or on review under these rules and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal or removal and shall remain in force until further orders. (5) Where a penalty of dismissal or removal from service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of law and the competent authority a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal or removal was originally imposed, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the original order of dismissal or removal and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. Government instructions.- (1) An officer on suspension is entitled to ask that the matter should be investigated with reasonable diligence and charges should be framed within reasonable period of time and if such steps are omitted then it would imply that the authorities are vested with a total arbitrary and unfettered power of placing its officers under disability and distress for an indefinite duration. The suspension order is bad if it is not followed by charge sheet and enquiry within a reasonable time. It has been observed that on occasions the power under the aforesaid rule is being invoked on unjustifiable grounds or on more suspicion of misconduct before prima facie case has been established. It may be appreciated that frequent resort to suspensions even at slightest provocation is not only unwarranted but also counterproductive. It has been observed that on occasions the power under the aforesaid rule is being invoked on unjustifiable grounds or on more suspicion of misconduct before prima facie case has been established. It may be appreciated that frequent resort to suspensions even at slightest provocation is not only unwarranted but also counterproductive. Besides affecting morale in the services it puts avoidable stain on the public exchequer by way of subsistence allowance for non work done. Public interest should be the guiding factor in deciding whether or not Government servant be placed under suspension or whether such action should be taken even while the matter is under investigation and before a prima facie case has been established. It is, therefore, imperative that the discretion vested in the authorities should be exercised with due care and caution after taking all the factors into account. For example where continuance in office of a Government servant is considered likely to prejudice, investigation, trial or enquiry or his continuance is considered likely to subvert the discipline in the office in which he works, the purpose can be achieved if he is transferred to some other station or office as the case may be rather than to place him under suspension. Like-wise, if such a Government servant would like to proceed on leave that might be due to him and if the authority concerned thinks that such a step would not be in appropriate, there should be no objection to leave being granted instead of suspending him. Similarly, in case where a Government servant has unauthorisedly absented from duty, the proper cause is to initiate action against him under Article 28 of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations and not to place him under suspension. The following circumstances may, however, be considered appropriate to place a Government servant under suspension:- (i) where the continuance in office of the Government servant will be against the wider public interest, e.g. if there is public scandal and it is considered necessary to place the Government servant under suspension to demonstrate the policy of the Government to deal strictly with officer involved in such scandal. (ii) Where a preliminary enquiry into allegations made has revealed a prima facie case justifying criminal or departmental proceedings which are likely to lead to his conviction or and dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service other than under Article 226 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations. (iii) Where the public servant is suspected to have engaged himself in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the State. (iv) Serious negligence and dereliction of duty resulting in loss to the Government. Government Instructions (2).-Competent authorities should endeavour to have charge-sheet filed in Court, in case of prosecution, or served on the Government servant, in case of departmental proceedings within three months from the date of suspension. Cases in which this is not possible such authorities will report to the next higher authority, explaining the reason for delay. The cases of Government servants under suspension should be reviewed by the competent authorities periodically to see that steps could be taken to expedite the progress of the court trial/departmental proceedings, so as to reduce the period of suspension to barest minimum." 13. The petitioners and scores of other employees of Rural, Finance and Planning, Accounts and Treasuries Departments are alleged to be involved in large scale embezzlement of government funds meant for developmental works in different parts of District Anantnag. The alleged scam surfaced in 1993 and prompted Police Station, VOK to register a case under Section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act and other provisions of Ranbir Penal Code. Petitioners in SWP no. 1317/2006 were dismissed from service, while petitioners in SWP no. 1409/2009 possibly because of lesser role in the alleged scam were placed under suspension. Petitioners in SWP no. 1317/2006 questioned their dismissal in a writ petition before this Court. The matter finally came up before the Full Bench and the Bench vide judgment rendered on 05.09.2003 reported as 2004 (1) SLJ 127 : JKJ[HC] (1) 2004 48, quashed the orders whereby petitioners were dismissed. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:- "The impugned orders, dismissing the writ petitioners from service, are quashed. We leave it open to the concerned authorities to proceed departmentally against all the respondents in the letters Patent Appeals and the writ petitioners in the three writ petitions. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:- "The impugned orders, dismissing the writ petitioners from service, are quashed. We leave it open to the concerned authorities to proceed departmentally against all the respondents in the letters Patent Appeals and the writ petitioners in the three writ petitions. In case the Government decides to hold any such departmental enquiry, the same shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably, within a period of six months from the date of this judgment. Depending upon the outcome of any such departmental enquiry, decision with regard to the intervening period shall be taken by the concerned authorities. It may be mentioned here that since the Government has already reinstated most of the employers involved in the criminal cases, including Rais Ahmad Gazi, whose case rested on entirely a different footing, the State, on the same analogy, will consider reinstatement of the persons involved in the instant appeals and writ petitions." 14. The operative part of the judgment is being reproduced to find out whether the Full Bench while rendering above judgment directed the respondents to place the petitioners on their reinstatement, under suspension as is being projected by the respondents. A bare look at the judgment would reveal that it was left open to the respondents to direct an enquiry into the matter. It was only, in the event, an enquiry was directed that the intervening period was to be settled having regard to the outcome of the enquiry. The respondents, in any case, were to conclude enquiry within six months, in the event, an enquiry was directed in the matter. 15. Suspension of a government employee having regard to its object i.e. to exclude chances of a government employee facing an allegation of misconduct or criminal charge, influencing enquiry or trial or tampering with the record likely to come against him in support of alleged misconduct or criminal charge, is prospective in character. It can be used only prospectively unless the Rules expressly give power to order retrospective suspension, to the competent authority. It is well settled law that the order of suspension cannot be passed with retrospective effect unless or until there is an express rule conferring such power on the competent authority. A reference in this regard may be made to Khem Chand v. Union of India AIR 1963 SCC 687. It is well settled law that the order of suspension cannot be passed with retrospective effect unless or until there is an express rule conferring such power on the competent authority. A reference in this regard may be made to Khem Chand v. Union of India AIR 1963 SCC 687. In aforementioned case, validity of Rule 12 (4), the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, was called in question. The Rule reads as under:- "12 (4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a court of law and the disciplinary authority on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him, on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders." The Supreme Court holding that "an order of suspension of a government servant does not put to an end to his service under the government" and he continues to be a member of the service in spite of the order of suspension and that "the real effect of the order of suspension is that though he continued to be a member of the government service he was not permitted to work, and further, during the period of his suspension he was paid only some allowance - generally called "subsistence allowance" - which is normally less than his salary - instead of the pay and allowance he would have been entitled to, if he had not been suspended" and that "there is no doubt that the order of suspension affects a government servant injuriously" held Rule 12 (4) to be valid and not to contravene any of the constitutional provisions including Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 16. The Full Bench judgment dated 05.09.2003 as already pointed out did not direct the respondents to place petitioners retrospectively under suspension from the date of dismissal order. It nonetheless left room for a departmental enquiry into the alleged misconduct of petitioners. 17. 16. The Full Bench judgment dated 05.09.2003 as already pointed out did not direct the respondents to place petitioners retrospectively under suspension from the date of dismissal order. It nonetheless left room for a departmental enquiry into the alleged misconduct of petitioners. 17. Rule 31(5) J&K (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 reproduced above, provides for suspension from the date of dismissal, where dismissal or removal from service is set aside or declared or rendered void inconsequence of a decision of Court of law and the competent authority on consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold further enquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal or removal was already imposed. Rule 31(5) is para materia with Rule 12(4) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957 held valid by the Apex Court in Khem Chand's case (supra). In the present case, suspension from a retrospective date, was permissible as it satisfied requirements of Rule 31 (5) of J&K (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. Question no. 1 is, therefore, to be answered in affirmative. 18. A closer look at Rule 31 J&K (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 would reveal that emphasis all along is on an expeditious and time bound enquiry into the allegation of misconduct against a government employee placed under suspension so that, in the event, allegation is found without substance or only minor punishment awarded in case the allegation is held to have some substance, the suspension is revoked and the government employee allowed to perform his duties. Government Instruction no. 1 inserted vide SRO 616 dated 20.09.1978, declares a government servant placed under suspension entitled to ask for expeditious conclusion of enquiry or trial. The authorities clothed with power to place a government employee under suspension are advised to avoid suspension and make public interest as guiding principle to decide whether or not a government servant should be placed under suspension. They are reminded that suspension puts avoidable strain on the public exchequer by way of subsistence allowance for no work done. The Instruction provides that where a government servant is likely to prejudice, investigation, trial or enquiry or his continuation, is likely to subvert the discipline in the office in which he works, it is required to be examined whether his transfer rather than suspension would serve the purpose. The Instruction provides that where a government servant is likely to prejudice, investigation, trial or enquiry or his continuation, is likely to subvert the discipline in the office in which he works, it is required to be examined whether his transfer rather than suspension would serve the purpose. An option to permit the government servant to proceed on leave is also directed to be considered before placing the public servant under suspension. Government Instruction No. 2 obligates the competent authorities to review suspension of a government servant periodically to see that steps are taken to expedite the progress of Court trial or departmental proceedings, so as to reduce the periods of suspension to barest minimum. Full Bench in 2004 (1) SLJ 127 : 2004 (1) JKJ[HC] 48 also laid down an outer limit of six months for concluding enquiry if any ordered against petitioners. 19. The mandate of Rule 31, therefore, is to make suspension a temporary affair and not to prolong it so as to convert it into a nightmare for a government employee worse than his dismissal. Suspension cannot be open ended or for an indefinite period; That the suspension of a government servant is to lose validity, in case, it is not reviewed after periodical intervals objectively and on such review extended or revoked, is also evident from Rule 10 of The Central Civil Services (Classification., Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. It would be advantageous to reproduce sub-rules 6 & 7 Rule 10 of the Rules. "(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension on the recommendation of the Review Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eight days at a time. Subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eight days at a time. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (5) (a), an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or (2) of this rule shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it is extended after review, for a further period before the expiry of ninety days." A bare look at the above provision makes it clear that suspension of a government servant if not reviewed within 90 days from the effective date of suspension is to become invalid. Any subsequent review will not impart legality to the suspension. Even where it is reviewed within stipulated period and on review extended, it is to be again reviewed before extended period of suspension comes to an end. Furthermore, it cannot be extended for a period of more than 180 days at a time. Rule 10 Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, even if not applicable to the present case, gives an insight into principles that must guide an authority while directing suspension or extending suspension of a Government servant, as also suggests interpretation required to be placed on Government Instruction no. 2 added to Rule 31 J&K (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 vide SRO 616 dated 20.09.1978. 20. Suspension is bound to become agonizing for the government servant and his dependents where it stretches over a long period or extends beyond retirement. The government servant after his retirement would not only be deprived of retiral benefits like gratuity, leave salary etc. but would not get pension admissible under Rules. It affects his right to livelihood, an integral part of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21 Constitution of India. A. government servant under suspension facing enquiry or trial has a right to insist on expeditious conclusion of departmental or criminal proceedings. Where the enquiry or trial gets unreasonably delayed and does not witness any progress, his right to timely justice again a part of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 is infringed. He is not affected only monetarily but emotionally as well as psychologically. Where the enquiry or trial gets unreasonably delayed and does not witness any progress, his right to timely justice again a part of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 is infringed. He is not affected only monetarily but emotionally as well as psychologically. His suspension stretching over a significant part of service career, deprives him of his right to use his talent and potential and relish the satisfaction of having been a useful member of the society and to have served the society to the best of his capabilities. 21. It needs no emphasis that time resources are most precious assets of a human being and in case these resources are allowed or made to go waste, the result is loss of, irretrievable resources and the victim has to live with trauma and pain for the rest of his life. The government as an important component of the system of governance envisaged under the Constitution, is in terms of preamble to the Constitution, under an obligation to secure justice to one and all. The government by forcing suspension on a government servant for more than a decade would be guilty of breach of its constitutional obligation to secure justice to the suspended employee. 22. In the present case, petitioners have been placed under suspension with effect from 1993. Petitioners, therefore, have not been able to make use of their time resources and talent for more than two decades and in the process have been deprived of not only such resources but also of their right to earn their livelihood and generate income for themselves and their dependents. Their suspension extending to a good part of their life and the significant part of their active life must have adversely affected academic career of their children and healthcare facilities available to them and their dependents. Though suspension ordinarily would not amount to punishment, yet where it is allowed to continue for a long time it gets converted into the worst type of punishment. 23. Though suspension ordinarily would not amount to punishment, yet where it is allowed to continue for a long time it gets converted into the worst type of punishment. 23. From the above discussion, legal proposition that emerges is that suspension order allowed to continue beyond a reasonable period without periodic review and in violation of spirit and mandate of Rule 31 of J&K (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 because of delay in finalization/conclusion of departmental enquiry or the criminal trial for the reasons not attributable to the government employee, would be violative of constitutional mandate spelt out in preamble to the constitution and also Article 21 Constitution of India. It is to be realized that revocation of suspension does not mean that the government employee facing a criminal charge or allegation of misconduct is absolved of the charge or allegation with the revocation of suspension. He is still to be visited with punishment or sentence, in the event, charge or allegation is proved. The revocation of suspension after reasonable time only excludes chance of a suspended employee living with bitterness and a sense of having been wronged due to long suspension after he is acquitted of the charge or the allegation of misconduct is found without substance. In the circumstances, the suspension cannot be allowed to operate after a reasonable period. What would be reasonable period" for the suspension to survive because of pendency of departmental proceedings or criminal trial, where after it should be held to have outlived its life, depends on facts and circumstances of a case. However, having regard to the average period of pendency of a criminal trial/departmental proceedings, the suspension order may very well be held to lose its force after five years from the effective date of suspension - where the government servant continues to be a member of service, unless extended on review, irrespective of the conclusion/termination of departmental proceedings or criminal trial, and with the retirement on superannuation where the government servant during pendency of departmental proceedings/criminal trial retires on superannuation. The competent authority would, therefore, be under an obligation to revoke the suspension order subject to such terms and conditions as it deems fit to secure the interest of the government/public exchequer. The competent authority would, therefore, be under an obligation to revoke the suspension order subject to such terms and conditions as it deems fit to secure the interest of the government/public exchequer. Once the departmental proceedings/criminal trial is not concluded during five years after the suspension order was made and suspension has not been reviewed and extended on the basis of such review by an express order, government servant would be deemed to have been reinstated and the competent authority duty bound to assign him work. 24. In the present case, petitioners in SWP no. 1317/2006 have been placed under suspension w.e.f. 25.06.1993. They have retired while they were under suspension. There is nothing on record to suggest let alone substantiate, that the suspension orders in question were ever reviewed, and extended on such review. One of the petitioners has even passed away during pendency of the writ petition. The Government order nos. 675-GAD of 1993 dated 12.08.1993 and 143-GAD of 2004 dated 29.01.2004, in view of, what has been held above, cannot survive and have lost their force by efflux of time. 25. This brings us to third and last question catalogued in para 7 above. The government has to act as a model employer. It cannot selectively distribute benefits, prefer one group of employees to another group or one employee over another employee. It has to treat all its, similarly circumstanced, employees equally giving them equal treatment in all aspects of their service career. The large scale embezzlement of government funds sanctioned under Centrally Sponsored Jawahar Rozgar Yojna (JRY) came to light in 1993. The investigation revealed that 271 government employees and 64 private actors (contractors, mates etc.) were allegedly involved in the scam. Those allegedly involved included senior officers in Administration, Revenue, Engineering, Finance, Accounts and Treasuries, Planning and Statistics Departments of the State Government. The record placed on file would shows that a number of those allegedly involved in the aforesaid scam and facing trial like petitioners have either been reinstated and posted against important positions or promoted or reinstated and allowed to collect all the retiral benefits on their superannuation. The record placed on file would shows that a number of those allegedly involved in the aforesaid scam and facing trial like petitioners have either been reinstated and posted against important positions or promoted or reinstated and allowed to collect all the retiral benefits on their superannuation. Reference in this regard may be made to Government Order No. 806-GAD of 2006 dated 28.06.2006, Government Order No. 212-P&W (R&B) of 2007 dated 21.06.2007 whereby one of the officers facing trial has been reinstated and thereafter promoted as Incharge Executive Engineer, Government Order No. 83-PD of 1999 dated 24.12.1999 whereby one of the officers facing trial has been promoted. Government Order No. 43-PW (R&B) of 2012 dated 25.01.2012 promoting of the officers facing trial, Government Order No. 587-GAD 2002 dated 05.04.2002, sanctioning all retiral benefits in favour of one of the officers similarly circumstanced. PPO nos. 313980-C, 221118019-C, 324049 & 300724 whereby some of the officers have been allowed to collect retiral benefits. These are the only few of the examples to how that respondents have not acted in a uniform, impartial and objective manner and resorted to a game of pick and choose, to selectively confer benefits on some of the officers similarly placed as the petitioners. Such a course is not permissible under law. Supreme Court in Sengara Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab AIR 1984 SC 1499 has in similar circumstances observed:- "9. What then should be done? The appellants have been accused of participating in a procession taken out by the members of the Police Force for ventilating their grievances about their service conditions. May be that still having not reached the stage of tolerance for formation of associations amongst police personnel, the demonstrators may be looked upon with disfavour. But approaching the matter from this angle, all the 1100 dismissed members of the Police Force were guilty of same misconduct namely indiscipline to the same extent and degree as the present appellants. Now, if the indiscipline of a large number of personnel amongst dismissed personnel could be condoned or overlooked and after withdrawing the criminal cases against them, they could be reinstated, we see no justification in treating the present appellants differently without pointing out how they were guilty of more serious misconduct or the degree of indiscipline in their case was higher than compared to those who were reinstated. Respondents failed to explain to the Court the distinguishing features and, therefore, we are satisfied in putting all of them in same bracked. On that conclusion the treatment meted to the present appellants suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and Art. 14 forbids any arbitrary action which would tantamount to denial of equality as guaranteed by Art. 14 of the Constitution. The Court must accordingly interpose and quash the discriminatory action." The principle was reiterated in Abdul Majid v. State of J&K, SLJ 1987 J&K 371 : JKJ Soft JKJ/20114. The Court quoted with the approval following observation made in State of Madras v. K.A. Joseph AIR 1970 Mad. 155 : "There is a very clear and distinct principal of natural justice, that an officer is entitled to ask, if he is suspended from his office because of grave averments or grave reports of misconduct that the matter should be investigated with reasonable diligence and that charges should be framed against him within a reasonable period of time. If such a principle were not to be recognized, it would imply that the executive is being vested with a total arbitrary and unfettered power of placing its officers under disability and distress, for an indefinite duration." 26. The impugned orders are, therefore, also in gross conflict with mandate of Article 14, Constitution of India. 27. For the reasons discussed above, the writ petitions SWP no. 1317/2006 & 1409/2009 are allowed and order no. Government Order Nos. 143-GAD of 2004 dated 29.01.2004 & 439-GAD of 2009 dated 24.03.2009 are quashed. The respondents are directed to compute and workout all the retiral benefits due to the petitioners, ignoring the orders quashed above and release benefits and the pension due to them within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order subject to their furnishing an undertaking with two guarantees that, in the event, any government money is found to be recoverable from them, they shall deposit it in the state treasury. 28. Disposed of.