JUDGMENT Per Massodi, J. 1. Letters patent appeal on hand is directed against writ court judgement dated 20.10.14 in SWP No. 387 of 2014 C/w SWP No. 819/14 titled Dr. Syed Ameen Tabish v. State & Others whereby both the writ petitions have been disposed of in terms of directions laid down therein. 2. We have gone through memo of appeal as also writ record and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Facts are not disputed. Dr. Syed Amin Tabish respondent herein was appointed as Assistant Surgeon vide Government Order No. 464/G-92 dated 21.10.1982. The Service book prepared on his entry in the Government service reflected his date of birth as 30.03.1957. He joined respondent Institute on 01.11.1991 as Senior Resident and has over the years gone up the promotion ladder and reached position of H.O.D. Hospital Administration. 4. Dr. Reyaz Ahmad Rangrez, at present holding position of Incharge H.O.D, Hospital Administration, in the Institute on 10.05.2012, submitted an application under Right To Information Act, to have information regarding date of birth of respondent as recorded in his service record. 5. The information collected revealed that while respondent's date of birth was recorded as 30.03.1957 in the Service Book, his matriculation certificate as also bio-data sheet signed by him at the time of his appointment in the respondent Institute (on 04.11.1991) reflected his date of birth as 30.03.1956. Discrepancy in the date of birth led appellant to suspect that respondent had manipulated his date of birth in his service record, to extend his service beyond date of his superannuation as per actual date of birth. 6. Director respondent Institute, vide order dated 01.09.2012 directed enquiry in the matter. Enquiry was entrusted to the Committee comprising of Professor Khursheed Iqbal Dar, the then Dean Medical Faculty (Convenor), Dr. Gul Javaid and Professor Mohammad Maqbool, Head Of the Department Radio Therapy. Professor Khurshid Iqbal Dar, was to act as Convenor of the Enquiry Committee. Respondent was placed under suspension and Dr. Reyaz Ahmad Rangrez, Associate Professor-cum- Deputy Medical Superintendent, was vide Order No. 110 SKIMS of 2012 dated 11.10.2012 asked to function as Incharge H.O.D, Hospital Administration. Dr. Reyaz Ahmad Rangrez, incidentally, is the respondent's Colleague who initially submitted application under Right To Information Act, to have information about respondent's date of birth as recorded in his service record, that triggered inquiry into the matter. 7. Dr. Reyaz Ahmad Rangrez, incidentally, is the respondent's Colleague who initially submitted application under Right To Information Act, to have information about respondent's date of birth as recorded in his service record, that triggered inquiry into the matter. 7. Fare of enquiry directed in 2012 vide order dated 01.09.2012 is not known. However, as second enquiry was directed in the matter, the first enquiry was either left halfway/abandoned or the Enquiry Committee in its report did not find merit in the allegations levelled against respondent. Be that as it may, appellant directed fresh enquiry vide Government Order No. 24 GAD(Vig) of 2013 dated 14.03.2013 appointed Sh. M. K. Dwivedi, Commissioner Secretary Government Health and Medical Education Department, as Enquiry Officer. The charge levelled against respondent remained same i.e. manipulation of date of birth in his service record. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 18.03.2013. 8. Enquiry Officer in his report recommended respondent's re-instatement. The enquiry officer was of the view that the petitioner, even if, his date of birth was taken to be 30.03.1956, was to continue in service till 30.03.2016; that correct date of birth was recorded in his service record and that respondent did not derive any benefit from the date of birth entry made in the service record. Enquiry Officer in aforementioned background opined that respondent deserved to be reinstated. 9. The appellant did not revoke respondent's suspension order afterthe first enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Committee headed by Dr. Khursheed Iqbal Dar. was either abandoned or Enquiry Committee did not find substance in the charge levelled against the respondent. The respondent was not reinstated even when second enquiry officer recommended his re-instatement. The appellant Institute decided to continue respondent's suspension. 10. The appellant instead vide Order No. 50/GAD(Vig) of 2013 dated 10.10.2013 directed yet another enquiry i.e the third in a row, against the respondent on the same charge as was subject matter of first two enquiries. 11. The order was questioned in SWP No. 387/14. The writ court during pendency of writ petition was informed that third Enquiry Officer has concluded enquiry and submitted enquiry report. The Court in view of the information received, disposed of writ petition vide judgement dated 20.10.2014 giving liberty to the Appellant to proceed with the matter in accordance with rules. 11. The order was questioned in SWP No. 387/14. The writ court during pendency of writ petition was informed that third Enquiry Officer has concluded enquiry and submitted enquiry report. The Court in view of the information received, disposed of writ petition vide judgement dated 20.10.2014 giving liberty to the Appellant to proceed with the matter in accordance with rules. Appellant was further directed to consider respondent's reinstatement without any further delay and in any case within ten day's from the date of judgement. 12. The Appellant is aggrieved with judgement dated 20.10.2014 has come up with the Letters Patent Appeal. Appellant in particular is aggrieved with the writ court judgment to the extent it directs appellant to consider respondent's reinstatement. 13. The case in hand has its own peculiar features. It is not a run of the mill case where the enquiry has been directed against a government employee, the delinquent employee placed under suspension to facilitate the enquiry the enquiry officer to have concluded the enquiry and court directed competent authority to consider his reinstatement. Had it been so, the appellant possibly could be heard saying that such a direction was not called for. 14. Suspension of a government employee does not amount to punishment. It is a tool with the Government to avoid entrustment of work to a delinquent Government Officer facing charge of misconduct, to facilitate smooth enquiry into the mis-conduct alleged against him and to decide his fate in light of outcome of the enquiry. Suspension nonetheless deprive a suspended employee of privileges and amenities attached to the office and his right to make fruitful and productive use of time resources available to him suspension having regard to contemporary realities was a negative fallout on reputation of a suspended government employee and his standing in the society. Suspension, as the meaning of the expression would suggest, is temporary in nature. It cannot be allowed for years together. Suspension may assume character of punishment where it is allowed to continue for pretty long time. Prolonged suspension develops a vested interest in the employee assigned charge of suspended employee and his sympathizers in the department to perpetuate agony of suspended employee and to ensure that matter is not taken to its logical end with proper despatch. 15. Suspension may assume character of punishment where it is allowed to continue for pretty long time. Prolonged suspension develops a vested interest in the employee assigned charge of suspended employee and his sympathizers in the department to perpetuate agony of suspended employee and to ensure that matter is not taken to its logical end with proper despatch. 15. It will be apt to reproduce following observations of Division Bench of this Court in R.S. Manhas v. District Development Commissioner, Udhampur 1988(7) (SLR) 760 (J&K) on the subject- "3. Law relating to Government servants as noted earlier has its root and sources in the Constitution, certain Acts of the legislature, the service rules and the pronouncements of High Courts and the Supreme Court. The law has therefore assured of equality of opportunity and fair competition in matters of public employment (Article 16); regulation of condition of service by different Acts and rules framed having the statutory form and protection against arbitrary actions of the executive. Such rights cannot be exhaustive but only are indicative and the Court has the power, in the given facts of the case, to protect the rights of the Civil servants against the excess committed by the executive. The condition of service in a democratic set up cannot be left to the caprice of authorities and have to be regulated by statute and the statutory rules. 4. Suspension means debarring usually, for a time, from any privilege, from the execution of an office or from the enjoyment of an income according to the ordinary dictionary meaning. It is a temporary privation of office or a privilege. However, by reason of mere suspension the person concerned does not lose his office nor does he suffer any degradation but he ceases to exercise the powers and to discharge the duties of the office for the time being. Though his rank remains the same, yet he cannot drawn his salary during the period of suspension. The powers, functions and privileges of a civil servant during suspension remain in abeyance and he continues to be subject to the same discipline and penalties and to the same authorities as any other civil and cannot be treated as a normal routine order with respect to a civil servant which allegedly do not affect his rights. A suspended civil servant loses the respect and dignity which he enjoys before such an order is passed. A suspended civil servant loses the respect and dignity which he enjoys before such an order is passed. Suspension may not amount to punishment within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, or within the meaning of the punishment prescribed under any rules governing service conditions of the civil servants, even then it carries a stigma with respect to the concerned civil servant and definitely lowers him in the estimation from the society, his friends, relations and colleagues. It is true that the principle as enumerated in AIR 1949 Nagpur 118 to the effect that" when a man i suspended, he is in our opinion reduced in rank" is no more good law in view of numerous judgements of different High Courts wherein the said decision has been dissented from. It is also not acceptable that suspension, as a matter of general rule is not justiciable by the Courts of law. The construction, the statute and the statutory rules which govern the service conditions have to be kept in mind while adjudicating the order of suspension. We do not agree with the objection raised that in no case suspension was justiciable." 16. In the present case, respondent while posted as H.O.D Hospital Administration was placed under suspension way back in 2012. Two enquiries have gone in favour of respondent. The appellant un-mindful of recommendation made by the second Enquiry Officer of the rank of Commissioner/Secretary in the Government has decided to continue respondent's suspension. In case competent authority oblivious to outcome of the successive enquiries decides not to reinstate a Government employee, he may very well continue with the suspension till he attains age of superannuation. Suspension in such case may very well assume character punishment. 17. The writ court against above back drop cannot be faulted for directing the appellant to consider respondent's reinstatement within a fixed time frame. 18. In the circumstances, we find no legal infirmity in the writ court order so as to warrant interference. 19. The Letters Patent Appeal, therefore, must fail and is dismissed accordingly. Appeal dismissed