JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The facts culled out from the record are that the petitioner had been involved in Anti-corruption Bureau case and was initially suspended on 19.04.1999 in contemplation of initiation of departmental inquiry against him. However, the suspension order was revoked vide order dated 27.07.2000, in contemplation of departmental (2 of 5) [CW-1236/2010] inquiry, which may be continued thereafter. 3. It has come out that on account of ACB case, the petitioner was placed under judicial custody from where he was bailed out on 29.11.2007 in view thereof he remained in jail for more than 48 hours. 4. Consequently, in view of the provisions contained under Rule 13 (2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Control, Classification & Appeal) Rules, 1958, which have been adopted by the Mandi Samiti, the petitioner was again suspended on account of having remained in custody for more than 48 hours. The petitioner was reinstated pending the criminal case vide order dated 15.03.2008. Subsequent thereto, prosecution sanction was granted to the ACB authorities and in view of the same, the petitioner was again suspended vide order dated 27.01.2010 which came to be challenged by the petitioner in the present proceedings on the ground that once he has already suffered suspension merely on account of Circular issued by the State Government laying down that in all circumstances, where prosecution sanction has been granted an employee must essentially be suspended by relying upon the Circular dated 10.08.2001. 5. It has been further submitted that the respondents have not even properly followed and interpreted the (3 of 5) [CW-1236/2010] Circular dated 10.08.2001, which did not mandate compulsorily to suspend an employee. 6. Be that as it may, it has come on record that by a detailed order dated 10.02.2010, the order dated 27.01.2010 was stayed which has not been assailed by the State any further. It has been stated in the order dated 10.2.2010:- "At this juncture, it will be worthwhile to mention here that the suspension is a burden upon the State exchequer if is ordered when is not needed or justified. Equally serious is a matter when there is allegation of corruption. It has been stated in the order dated 10.2.2010:- "At this juncture, it will be worthwhile to mention here that the suspension is a burden upon the State exchequer if is ordered when is not needed or justified. Equally serious is a matter when there is allegation of corruption. No action are taken by the higher authorities even when the facts are in their knowledge, therefore, the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur is directed to show as to what action has been taken against those persons who did not act in time in a matter of allegation of corruption punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the challan has already been filed against the petitioner under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act in the year 2007. In view of that fact also, it is necessary for the department to explain why the suspension order was passed in the year 2010 when twice suspension order of the petitioner was revoked and when particularly, the department itself has not served any charge-sheet upon the petitioner. Copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur as well (4 of 5) [CW-1236/2010] as Principle Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur so that the Government may look into the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Sanwar Chand Chandel v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6719/2007) dated 6.1.2009 wherein the Government's said order dated 10.08.2001 was considered and wherein it has been held that the order dated 10.08.2001 cannot curtail the discretion vested with the appointing authority with regard to placing, continuing or revoking the suspension of a Government servant. This Court clearly observed that the said power vested with the authority who is required to take an independent and appropriate decision by taking into consideration of the facts, circumstances and legal position existing. The Courts are already flooded with the orders of suspension passed after delay of several years and thereby the aim and object for suspending the employee has already frustrated the purpose for which the employee is suspended. In view of the reasons given in the judgment referred above and in the facts of the case, the operation of the order Annex.13 dated 1.2.2010 is stayed." 7. In view of the reasons given in the judgment referred above and in the facts of the case, the operation of the order Annex.13 dated 1.2.2010 is stayed." 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in Om Prakash Pandiya v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2015 RLW 2228 wherein a Coordinate Bench has taken a view that the Circular dated 10.08.2001 is only advisory in nature and cannot be treated as mandatory. Similar view has also been taken by this Court in Samrath Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2010 (1) WLC (Raj.) 562. 8. In view of the position as already enunciated by this Court in the aforementioned judgments and in view of the detailed order dated 10.02.2010, it is not required for this Court to examine the validity of the Circular dated 10.08.2001 again which has already been treated to be advisory. The action of the respondents in treating it as a mandatory circular and issuing the suspension order impugned in the present case, therefore, has to go. 9. In view thereof, the order dated 27.01.2010 whereby the petitioner was suspended third time in relation to the same issue, for which he was earlier suspended and reinstated, relying upon the basis of the Circular dated 10.08.2001 is set aside. The order was already stayed by the Court, therefore, the interim order passed on 10.02.2010 is made absolute. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs.