JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. The petitioner in this case has challenged his suspension order dated 08.07.2013 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur and at the same time, prayed for reinstatement in his service as Primary Teacher in the Department of Education (S), Government of Manipur. The brief facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: That, while the petitioner was serving as Primary Teacher at Yumnam Huidrom Girls’ Primary School, he was arrested on 08.10.2012 at about 08:40 P.M. by a team of Manipur Police at Uripok Oil Pump, Imphal and after his arrest, an FIR case No. 530 (10) 12 IPS u/s 17/20 UA (P) Act, 1967 was registered at the Imphal Police Station. However, he was released on bail on 12.10.2012 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West. After 9 (nine) months of his release on bail, based on a report purportedly submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Imphal West District which stated that the petitioner was in Police Custody for more than 48 (forty eight) hours, the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued a suspension order dated 08.07.2013 thereby suspending him with effect from the date of his arrest with a view to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against him. Since then, he has been under suspension but no charge sheet is filed in the FIR case and no memorandum of charge given to him in connection with departmental inquiry. Besides, no subsistence allowance has been paid to him. Recently an order dated 08.02.2016 was issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur wherein, it was stated that subsistence allowance as per F.R. 53 (i)(ii)(a) would be given to him on furnishing a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment, business profession or vocation from the date of his suspension. Despite this order having been issued, the petitioner has not received any subsistence allowance so far. Having suffered for so long, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 29.03.2016 to the respondents requesting for revocation of his suspension order and his reinstatement in service. Getting no positive response he has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the suspension order and for a direction or order to reinstate him in service. 2. Having suffered for so long, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 29.03.2016 to the respondents requesting for revocation of his suspension order and his reinstatement in service. Getting no positive response he has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the suspension order and for a direction or order to reinstate him in service. 2. When the case was moved on 27.04.2016 this Court took notice of the facts and circumstance in which the petitioner has been while under suspension from service for such a long time. So the respondents were directed to file affidavit-in-opposition. However, the respondents have not done so for reasons best known to them only, in spite of repeated opportunities given to them. On 25.07.2016, when the case was called up, the learned Government Advocate representing the respondents once again prayed for time to file affidavit-in-opposition in spite of the fact that enough opportunities have already been given. It was countered by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by stating that the petitioner has been under suspension for almost 4 (four) years without being paid even subsistence allowance in spite of order dated 08.02.2016 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, therefore, this case deserves to be heard and disposed. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances under which the petitioner has been under suspension for the last almost 4 (four) years and the fact that the respondents have been given enough opportunities to file affidavit-in-opposition, this Court did not consider justified to continue giving such opportunity while the petitioner is kept waiting in suffering. Therefore, the matter was heard. 4. Heard Mr. Kh. Samarjit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Ch. Sundari, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that though the petitioner was arrested and suspended since almost 4 (four) years ago, no charge sheet has been filed in the FIR Case and no memorandum of charge has also been framed against him in the departmental inquiry that was stated to have been contemplated in his suspension order. Therefore, it may be assumed by now that there is no material to make out a case both in the FIR case and in the departmental inquiry against the petitioner. Therefore, it may be assumed by now that there is no material to make out a case both in the FIR case and in the departmental inquiry against the petitioner. If it were not so, charge sheet would have been filed in the FIR case and the departmental inquiry would have also been completed. But since none of these has happened, the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer for time indefinite. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India through its Secretary and Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed that suspension order should not be extended beyond 3 (three) months if within this period a memorandum of charges/charge sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee. But if time of suspension is to be extended, a reasoned order must be passed. The learned counsel also submitted that even in a case where charge sheet has been submitted but no departmental proceeding has been initiated, the suspended employee has been reinstated. The learned counsel cited the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Jinna Abdur Rahim vs. State of Assam, reported in 2002 (3) GLT 498 in support of his submission. In the first case cited by the learned counsel, the Honb’le Supreme Court stated at Para 21 of the judgment as follows: “21. We therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension. As in the case in hand, the Government is free to transfer the person concerned to any department in any of its offices within or outside the State so as to sever any local or personal contact that he may have and which he may misuse for obstructing the investigation against him. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any persons, or handling records and documents till the stage of his universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. The Government may also prohibit him from contacting any persons, or handling records and documents till the stage of his universally recognized principle of human dignity and the right to a speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. We recognize that the previous Constitution Benches have been reluctant to quash proceedings on the grounds of delay, and to set time-limits to their duration. However, the imposition of a limit on the period of suspension has not been discussed in prior case law, and would not be contrary to the interest of justice. Furthermore, the direction of the Central Vigilance Commission that pending a criminal investigation, departmental proceedings are to be held in abeyance stands superseded in view of the stand adopted by us.” 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted in response to the above submission of the learned counsel of the petitioner that long continuance of suspension due to the pending criminal proceeding or departmental proceeding does not necessarily entitle the delinquent employee reinstatement in service when the charge against him is serious in nature. The learned counsel cited the case of Allahabad Bank and Anr. vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola, as reported in (1997) 4 SCC 1 . I have gone through the judgment. 8. In the case of O.P. Gupta vs. Union of India, as reported in 1987 4 SCC 328 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that suspension of an employee is injurious to his interest and must not be continued for an unreasonably long period; that, therefore, an order of suspension should not be lightly passed. The Court also further stated as follows: “It is a clear principle of natural justice that the delinquent officer when placed under suspension should be entitled to represent that the departmental proceedings should be concluded with reasonable diligence and 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 totally arbitrary and unfettered power of placing its officers under disability and distress for an indefinite duration.” 9. Despite such laws having been enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court as given above and as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner regrettably suspension of Government employees for protracted period seems to have become a norm rather than exception. Despite such laws having been enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court as given above and as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner regrettably suspension of Government employees for protracted period seems to have become a norm rather than exception. The petitioner in this case has been under suspension as stated above for almost 4 (four) years without being given subsistence allowance which he is entitled to. One can imagine the problems he must have encountered, in looking after his family during the last almost 4 (four) years, without any other income except the meager monthly salary of his wife who according to him is working as a nurse in a Private Hospital. There is no sign of concluding the trial in the criminal case in the near future since no charge sheet has been even filed. There is also no sign of an end to the departmental proceeding contemplated by the Department since it has not even begun. To aid to the injury, no subsistence allowance has been paid to the petitioner for the last almost 4 (four) years. As stated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of cases, suspension is not punishment but in the case of the petitioner it has turned out to be so. The public interest in maintaining the efficiency of services requires that Government employees should not be unfairly dealt with. The Government must view with concern that the departmental inquiry against the petitioner should have been kept alive for almost 4 (four) years but without even initiating it and that he should have been placed under suspension without any lawful justification for such period without any progress being made in the Departmental Inquiry and in the FIR Case. Such circumstances has not only demoralized the Government employee but will surely ruin his career as a Teacher apart from being subjected to untold hardship and humiliation. The departmental proceeding and the FIR Case against the Government servant should have been conducted and concluded with reasonable diligence and not allowed to be protracted unnecessarily. 10. In the case cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, charge sheet was filed and the offence charged against the accused was of something that involves moral turpitude. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not in favour of reinstating the accused. 10. In the case cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, charge sheet was filed and the offence charged against the accused was of something that involves moral turpitude. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was not in favour of reinstating the accused. However, in the case of the petitioner, no charge sheet has been filed in the FIR case and no memorandum of charge has been handed over to him in the departmental inquiry stated to have been contemplated even though almost 4 (four) years have passed since his arrest and suspension. As such, the two cases can be easily distinguished. 11. In the case of Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab, as reported in (1994) 3 SCC 569 the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court equivocally construed the right of speedy trial as a fundamental right. The relevant Para is given here below: “86. The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right of life and liberty guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result from impermissible and avoidable delay from the time of the commission of the offence till it consummates into a finality, can be averted. In this context, it may be noted that the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial is properly reflected in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as given above, it can safely be concluded that the petitioner’s right to speedy trial has been violated. The fact that a Government servant can be suspended if he or she has been in custody for more than 48 hours and that other consequences are bound to follow till his or her name is cleared from the case should be taken into account while registering an FIR case against a Government servant and process for further action is initiated. Unless prima facie case is made out restraint should be exercised. Unless prima facie case is made out restraint should be exercised. Registration of FIR case against a Government servant or implicating his name in an FIR case which is bound to be followed by other consequences like suspension etc. demoralizes him and on the other hand, public interest is affected as the Government’s working strength is reduced to that extent. Therefore, there is no one who will gain in that kind of circumstances. In case the Government servant comes out clean of all the charges, he will be entitled to all the pay and allowances of his suspension period without having put his labour for it, as such, ultimately it is the public who stands to lose. Besides, the Government servant who has been subjected to such long duration of suspension and trial suffers irreparable loss in his service career, reputation etc. If the employee has a family they also suffer equally. Therefore, as stated above, keeping all these in view before an FIR case is registered the case against the accused should be examined and considered properly so as to see if a prima facie case is or can be made out. In case a prima facie case is or can be made out, and the Government servant is arrested his right to speedy trial should be kept in mind. Needless to repeat but for the sake of clarity, in this case the petitioner was arrested and released on bail on the sixth day from the date of his arrest. Since his arrest, 3 (three) years and 9 (nine) months have passed but no charge sheet is filed till today and no memorandum of charge is also handed over to him so far, in connection with the departmental inquiry stated to have been contemplated against him. Further, to aid to his suffering no subsistence allowance has been given to him for all these years. 13. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the petitioner’s case, the law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the reasons discussed, I am of the considered view that it is just and proper to quash the suspension order issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur dated 08.07.2013 being No. 46/8/2008-ED/S(W). Therefore, the same is hereby quashed. Therefore, the same is hereby quashed. In consequence, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with full pay & allowances from the date of his suspension from service. It is also directed that the departmental inquiry and the FIR case should be brought to their natural conclusion at the earliest. With this, the writ petition is disposed. No order as to cost.