Judgment: Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 15.4.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.26607 of 2009 and 9626 of 2011, the writ petitioner has come up with these appeals. 2. The facts in nutshell leading to filing of the writ petitions are that the writ petitioner, while working as the first Vice Chancellor of Anna University, Coimbatore, was placed under suspension, vide G.O.(2D) No.83, Higher Education (II) Department dated 31.8.2009, stating therein that with permission, the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption had registered a regular case against him in Coimbatore Detachment Cr.No.15/09/AC/CB under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(a), 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Challenging the legality and validity of the same, the writ petitioner preferred W.P.No.26607 of 2009. Thereafter, by communication, dated 08.02.2010, the writ petitioner was repatriated from the office of the Vice Chancellor to his parent post as Professor of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Chennai. The writ petitioner joined duty on 09.02.2010. Consequent thereupon, by order dated 9.2.2010, the suspension of the petitioner on the post of Professor was continued, which was challenged in W.P.No.9626 of 2011. The second suspension order was also passed on the same ground, i.e., registration of criminal case against him by the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. The Headquarters of the writ petitioner was made at Chennai. 3. In the meantime, the writ petitioner preferred a Criminal Original Petition, being Crl.O.P.No.12947 of 2011, seeking quashment of the First Information Report No.15/2009/AC/CB. The said petition was dismissed on 20.02.2012 with a direction to the respondent therein to file a final report within a period of six weeks. Thereafter, M.P.No.1 of 2012 was filed in the said Criminal original petition seeking extension of time to complete the investigation and file the final report. Accordingly, time was extended by four months by order dated 09.04.2012. Further time was extended by three months on an application made in M.P.No.2 of 2012, by order dated 28.08.2012. Another miscellaneous petition was also filed in M.P.No.3 of 2012 seeking extension of time by one month to file the final report. That was also granted by order dated 07.12.2012. The charge sheet has been filed and the case is pending trial before the designated court. 4. Another miscellaneous petition was also filed in M.P.No.3 of 2012 seeking extension of time by one month to file the final report. That was also granted by order dated 07.12.2012. The charge sheet has been filed and the case is pending trial before the designated court. 4. The contention of Dr.R.Radhakrishnan, appellant-in-person is that the appellant cannot be made to suffer on account of delay in investigation and conclusion of trial by the authorities. The appellant has fully cooperated in the investigation and subsequently, in trial. The investigation could not be completed within the reasonable time and the trial is still pending consideration. The appellant is out of service since the first order of suspension was passed on 31.8.2009. The appellant is suffering agony for no fault of his. The appellant had taken fresh initiatives to establish the institution as he was appointed the first Vice Chancellor. The appellant has been punished for good work done by him. 5. On the question of legality, Dr.R.Radhakrishnan would submit that two suspension orders cannot be passed for the same offence and also the first order of suspension dated 31.8.2009 passed by the Government was vitiated as the Government has no competence to suspend the Vice Chancellor. 6. Per contra, Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, Additional Advocate General appearing with Mr.V.Shanmugasundar, learned advocate for the University, would contend that the parent post of the appellant was Professor in the University. The Anna University, Coimbatore was established by The Anna University, Coimbatore Act, 2006 (For short Act 2006). Under Section 54 of the Act 2006, the appellant was appointed as the first Vice Chancellor by the State Government for the period not exceeding three years and as such, the State Government, being the appointing authority, is competent to place the appellant under suspension. 7. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the second suspension order was passed by the Registrar of the University, who is competent to pass the order after he was appointed as the Professor in the parent post on 09.02.2010 on repatriation from the deputation on the post of first Vice Chancellor. Thus, the second suspension order dated 09.02.2010 was in continuation of the first order. Thus, the second suspension order dated 09.02.2010 was in continuation of the first order. It is further urged that Clause 4 of Anna University Statutes on Disciplinary Procedure, as approved by the Syndicate in its meeting held on 30.8.1980 and assented to by the Chancellor on 09.09.1980 in the parent University, i.e., Anna University, Chennai, does not provide for modification or revocation of the suspension in case of grave charges, which are likely to end in dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, involving embezzlement or misappropriation of university funds. This is a case where a criminal case for misappropriation has been registered by the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption under the provisions of Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(a), 13(1)(d) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is pending trial before the competent court. Thus, the suspension cannot be revoked. 8. The Office of the directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption bureau has also filed a status report, stating therein that the first information report contains allegations of accumulation and possession of disproportionate assets by the writ petitioner/appellant and his wife to the tune of Rs.1,87,58,170/-. It is further stated that hearing is in progress before the Special Court in Spl.C.C.No.09/2013. 9. We have carefully considered the rival contentions advanced by the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 10. Indisputably, the appellant, while working as the Chief Investigator, Centre for providing Electronics and Information Technology Patent Visualisation and Alert Services, Anna University, Chennai, was appointed as the first Vice Chancellor under the provisions of Section 54 of the Act 2006 for a period of three years by the State Government. On the basis of the communication dated 27.7.2009 from the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, the State Government accorded permission to register a case and initiate investigation for the serious allegation of corruption and also accumulation of disproportionate asset by G.O.(2D)No.82 dated 28.8.2009. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 31.8.2009, the appellant was placed under suspension by the State Government. The State Government, being the appointing authority on the post of the first Vice Chancellor under the provisions of Section 54 of the Act 2006, is competent to pass the order of suspension. Thus, the contention of the appellant that the State Government has no competence to place the Vice Chancellor under suspension is noted to be rejected. The State Government, being the appointing authority on the post of the first Vice Chancellor under the provisions of Section 54 of the Act 2006, is competent to pass the order of suspension. Thus, the contention of the appellant that the State Government has no competence to place the Vice Chancellor under suspension is noted to be rejected. In normal course, the Vice Chancellor is appointed by the Chancellor. In that event, the university alone with approval of the Chancellor is competent to place the Vice Chancellor under suspension. But, in the case on hand, when the appointment of the appellant was by the State Government as the first Vice Chancellor, the State Government is fully competent to place the appellant under suspension. The second suspension order dated 09.02.2010 was passed by the Registrar of the University and also there is no challenge to the competence of the authority in passing the second suspension order. 11. The next question is whether the suspension order could have been revoked on account of long delay in completing the investigation and also not completing trial within the reasonable period. The appellant had earlier filed criminal original petition before this Court and the same was dismissed by order dated 20.02.2012, directing the respondent therein to file the final report within the specified period. Subsequently, on applications filed for extension of time, time was also extended. 12. Clause 4 of the Anna University Statutes on Disciplinary Procedure provides for placing an employee under suspension, if there is grave charge, which is likely to end in dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement. There is no dispute that the charges are grave relating to corruption, embezzlement or misappropriation of University funds. The appellant, except self made statement, has failed to establish that the authorities have deliberately lingered on the proceedings of investigation and trial in order to punish the appellant without any cause or without holding the appellant as guilty. Not a single material has been placed before us which leads to even doubt that there was deliberate delay on the part of the officers. Normally, in case of allegation of accumulation of disproportionate asset and corruption, more time is taken for collection of documents and evidences before filing the charge sheet. 13. With regard to the contention of long period of suspension, the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Normally, in case of allegation of accumulation of disproportionate asset and corruption, more time is taken for collection of documents and evidences before filing the charge sheet. 13. With regard to the contention of long period of suspension, the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Rajiv Kumar, has observed as under : “29. Another plea raised relates to a suspension for a very long period. It is submitted that the same renders the suspension invalid. The plea is clearly untenable. The period of suspension should not be unnecessarily prolonged but if plausible reasons exist and the authorities feel that the suspension needs to be continued, merely because it is for a long period that does not invalidate the suspension.” 14. Thus, we are unable to hold that the delay was caused on account of deliberate attempt on the part of the officers. Now, the charge sheet has been filed and trial is in progress. We, therefore, are not inclined to pass any order in respect of revocation of suspension, at this stage. 15. Having regard to the aforestated facts and circumstances, as a sequel and also in the interest of justice, we direct the Special Court, wherein the matter is pending trial, to conduct and conclude the trial expeditiously, not later than six months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both writ appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.