JUDGMENT : Ajay Rastogi, J. 1. The petitioner, who was working as Additional Office Kanoongo while being posted at Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer on a criminal case being registered against him by a private person, remained in custody for 48 hours and the District Collector, Ajmer after receiving this information u/R. 13(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeals) Rules, 1958 placed him under deemed suspension vide order Dt. 31.10.2011 and since then he is under suspension. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined service as Patwari in the Patwar Circle Khandwa, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk and later he was promoted on the post of Inspector Land Records. One Mukesh Pareek submitted his application for opening mutation in his favour claiming himself to be an adopted son of late Hari Narain Pareek. After receipt of the application, the Tehsildar instructed the petitioner to submit his report with regard to adoption deed & pursuant to the letter of the Tehsildar Dt. 17.12.2008, the petitioner enquired from the villagers of the Village Khandwa, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk and it revealed to him that wife of late Hari Narain Pareek Smt. Heera Devi is still alive and on the basis of the information acquired by him, the petitioner prepared a report and submitted it to the Tehsildar and on the basis of the said report and whatever the evidence submitted by Mukesh Pareek, order was passed by the Tehsildar on 22.01.2009 for opening mutation in the name of Mukesh Pareek and accordingly, as per the directions of Tehsildar mutation was opened in the name of Mukesh Pareek on 06.02.2009 but at a later stage, the adoption deed furnished by Mukesh Pareek somewhere came to be re-visited and the successor in the office came across with the information that Will which he furnished and a reference has been made that the wife of testator is not alive but this fact was incorrect & she was very much alive which was further supported by the report of Patwari that she was alive even on the date when the testator signed the Will, as alleged. 3. 3. At this point of time, Mukesh Pareek might have come across with the information that it is because of the petitioner that review of mutation is taking place and the Tehsildar called for the explanation and on whatever facts were available with him and the fact that wife of the recorded khatedar late Hari Narain Pareek - Smt. Heera Devi was still alive, the mutation which was opened in the name of Mukesh Pareek was made ineffective by Naib Tehsildar, Niwai, District Tonk vide order Dt. 25.11.2009 and at this stage the complainant Mukesh Pareek became revengeful and lodged FIR No. 12/2010 against the petitioner at Police Station Barooni, District Tonk for offence u/Sec. 166, 167, 420, 467 & 120B IPC on 10.01.2010. The petitioner also filed a complaint against Mukesh Pareek to the SDO, Niwai, District Tonk on 05.04.2010 to avoid such pressure tactics adopted by the private persons a Preliminary Enquiry was conducted by the Inspector Land Records and report Dt. 30.04.2010 (Annex. 12) was submitted by him and it was observed that complaint made by Mukesh Pareek was due to annoyance and is out of vengeance because mutation was not accepted. 4. The FIR No. 12/2010 was registered against him at Police Station Barooni, District Tonk at the instance of a private complainant Mukesh Pareek and according to the petitioner, it was a false complaint in reference to the official duties discharged by him and because he failed to succumb to his wishes. 5. But to the petitioner's dismay, he was arrested and remained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, in consequence he was place under suspension u/R. 13(2) of the Rules, 1958 vide order Dt. 31.10.2011. Since it was a false complaint against the petitioner and one who works as per the provisions of law sometimes become a victim but he faced the brunt of suspension for no fault of his and these are nothing but pressure tactics which a private complainant adopted against him. He challenged the very FIR registered against him at the instance of the complainant-Mukesh Pareek in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1235/2013 wherein the further investigation in FIR No. 12/2010 was stayed by this court vide order Dt. 30.04.2013. The order Dt. 30.04.2013 is reproduced ad infra:- "S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1235/2013. He challenged the very FIR registered against him at the instance of the complainant-Mukesh Pareek in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1235/2013 wherein the further investigation in FIR No. 12/2010 was stayed by this court vide order Dt. 30.04.2013. The order Dt. 30.04.2013 is reproduced ad infra:- "S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 1235/2013. DATE OF ORDER : 30.04.2013 Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to accept notice on behalf of State. Learned Public Prosecutor is further directed to call for the progress report from the concerned Investigating Officer as the FIR relates to year 2010. Issue notice to respondent No. 2. Rule is made returnable within four weeks. Meanwhile, further investigation in FIR No. 12/2010 registered at P.S. Barooni, distt. Tonk is, hereby, stayed. List this case on 30.5.2013." 6. It is informed that the stay of investigation in FIR No. 12/2010 is still operative till disposal. Since the petitioner is facing suspension since 31.10.2011 and no one examine to review of their decision once placed under suspension, he made a representation in the light of the circular of the Government Dt. 03.06.2006 and requested the authorities that since the investigation has been stayed, his suspension may be revoked but that came to be rejected by the District Collector (Land Records), Ajmer vide order Dt. 24.07.2015 holding that clarification is in respect of stay granted by the court pending investigation/criminal trial and not of investigation of FIR and thus clarification made by the Government vide its circular Dt. 03.06.2006 may not come to his rescue. 7. 24.07.2015 holding that clarification is in respect of stay granted by the court pending investigation/criminal trial and not of investigation of FIR and thus clarification made by the Government vide its circular Dt. 03.06.2006 may not come to his rescue. 7. Counsel for petitioner submits that no disciplinary enquiry is pending against him and the suspension was because of the institution of a criminal case in which he remained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours in consequence placed under deemed suspension u/R. 13(2) of the Rules, 1958 but one cannot remain under suspension for indefinite period and the appointing authority is under obligation to review the suspension from time to time, as being contemplated u/R. 13(5) of the Rules, 1958 and in view of the circulars/guidelines issued by the Government that suspension has to be reviewed periodically and he is facing suspension for the last more than five years and no one is ready to review as to what purpose is going to be served in continuance of his suspension when further investigation in FIR has been stayed by this court and it is not a case where a judicial/disciplinary enquiry has been instituted at the instance of the employer/department and how long his suspension will continue for is not being known. 8. Counsel further submits that a clarification has been made by the Government vide its circular Dt. 03.06.2006 that in a case where there is stay by the court of law in pending investigation/criminal case, the suspension of Government employee deserves to be revoked and he has to be reinstated in service. Counsel submits that even on the application filed by the petitioner for revoking of his order of suspension in terms of clarification made by the Government Dt. 03.06.2006 the niceties which have been taken note of by the appointing authority while rejecting his application vide order Dt. 24.07.2015 is that the clarification is with regard to stay of investigation or pendency of criminal case, if stayed by the court of law and it is not for the stay of investigation in FIR. 9. Counsel submits that the distinction made is wholly artificial and the communication made to the petitioner Dt. 24.07.2015, in the light of the circular Dt. 03.06.2006, is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed and his suspension may be revoked and he deserves to be reinstated in service. 10. 9. Counsel submits that the distinction made is wholly artificial and the communication made to the petitioner Dt. 24.07.2015, in the light of the circular Dt. 03.06.2006, is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed and his suspension may be revoked and he deserves to be reinstated in service. 10. Reply to the petition has been filed and justification tendered is that as he was detained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours, no adversity was committed by the authority in placing him under suspension u/R. 13(2) of the Rules, 1958 and as regards clarification made by the Government vide its later circular Dt. 03.06.2006, it is stated that the same has been examined by the appointing authority and after due application of mind, application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order Dt. 24.07.2016 and as the FIR is still pending against the petitioner, there appears no justification to revoke the order of suspension. 11. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material on record. 12. At the outset so far as the suspension order of the petitioner Dt. 31.10.2011 is in consequence, as he remained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours u/R. 13(2) of the Rules, 1958 that clearly envisages of placing a Government servant under deemed suspension if the employee remained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours & that cannot be termed as being without jurisdiction or illegal. R.13(2) of the Rules, 1958 being relevant for the present purpose is reproduced ad infra:- "13. Suspension: (1) XX XX XX (2) A Government servant who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of detention, by an order of the Authority competent to place a Government Servant under suspension under sub-rule (1) and shall remain under suspension until further orders." 13. The question is not whether the action of the authority of placing him under suspension was valid or not but the question for consideration is whether continuance of suspension for a prolonged period of five years is justified in the facts & circumstances of the case and it deserves to be reviewed in the given facts & circumstances? 14. The question is not whether the action of the authority of placing him under suspension was valid or not but the question for consideration is whether continuance of suspension for a prolonged period of five years is justified in the facts & circumstances of the case and it deserves to be reviewed in the given facts & circumstances? 14. In the instant case, the petitioner was suspended because he remained in judicial custody for more than 48 hours vide order Dt. 31.10.2011 and I find no error in the decision taken by the authority while placing him under suspension and that is a requirement of R.13(2) of the Rules, 1958. The continuance of suspension at present is because of the FIR No. 12/2010 registered by a private complainant Mukesh Pareek where further investigation has been stayed by this court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1235/2013 vide order Dt. 30.04.2013 but the FIR No. 12/2010 registered against him at the instance of the private complainant is pending and at the same time in the Preliminary Enquiry conducted by the Inspector Land Records, who submitted his report Dt. 30.04.2010, it was reported by him that the complaint made by the complainant-Mukesh Pareek was due to vengeance and annoyance against the petitioner and in totality of the matter, continuance of petitioner under suspension that too after more than five years because of the FIR in isolation being registered against him appears to be illogical. The circular Dt. 30.04.2010, it was reported by him that the complaint made by the complainant-Mukesh Pareek was due to vengeance and annoyance against the petitioner and in totality of the matter, continuance of petitioner under suspension that too after more than five years because of the FIR in isolation being registered against him appears to be illogical. The circular Dt. 03.06.2006, being relevant is reproduced ad infra:- jktLFkku ljdkj dkfeZd ¼d&3@f'k{kk½ foHkkx Øekad% i 2 ¼157½ dkfeZd@d&3@87 t;iqj fnukad 3@6@2006 ifji= fo"k;%& jktlsodksa dks vkijkf/kd izdj.kksa esa fuyEcu ls cgkyh ds laca/k esa funsZ'kA bl foHkkx ds lela[;d ifji= fnukad 10@8@2001 }kjk ;g fn'kk&funsZ'k izlkfjr fd;s x;s Fks fd QkStnkjh izdj.k esa fuyfEcr jktlsod dks rc rd fuyEcu ls cgky ugha fd;k tk,xk tc rd fd lEcfU/kr jktlsod dks mlds fo:} l{ke U;k;ky; esa yfEcr QkStnkjh izdj.k esa nks"keqDr ugha dj fn;k tk,xkA jkT; ljdkj ds /;ku esa vk;k gS fd ,sls izdj.kksa esa jktlsodksa }kjk muds fo:} ntZ ,Q- vkbZ- vkj-@izlkfjr vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr vkns'k@U;k;ky; }kjk fy;k x;k izlaKku vkns'k dks vihyh; U;k;ky; esa pqukSrh nh tkdj rRlaca/kh vfxze dk;Zokgh ij dHkh &dHkh LFkxu vkns'k izkIr dj fy;k tkrk gSA bl dkj.k ;|fi ml izdj.k esa vuqla/kku@QkStnkjh U;k;ky; dh dk;Zokgh rks Lfkfer gks tkrh gS ijUrq Lo;a jktlsod rRi'pkr Hkh fuyfEcr cuk jgrk gSA bl izdkj ds fuyEcu dks fujUrj j[kus dk vkSfpR; ugha jgrk gSA bl lUnHkZ esa mDr ifji= ds vkaf'kd vf/kØe.k esa funsZ'k fn;s tkrs gS fd fdlh jktlsod ds fo:} yfEcr vuqla/kku@QkStnkjh izdj.k esa U;k;ky; dh dk;Zokgh ij LFkxu izlkfjr gksus dh fLFkfr esa ml jktlsod dks fuyEcu ls cgky dj fn;k tkosA bl izdkj dh cgkyh mDr LFkxu vkns'k ds izHkkoh jgus rd gh gksxh vkSj mlds fujLr gksrs gh jktlsod ds iqu% fuyEcu ds vkns'k tkjh fd, tk ldsxsaA Sd/- 'kklu lfpo 15. The clarification made by the Government of its circular Dt. 10.08.2001 vide circular Dt. 03.06.2006 that in such of the cases where investigation/criminal case is pending against the Government Servant if stayed by the court of law, suspension should be revoked. In the instant case, after there is a stay granted by this court vide order Dt. 30.04.2013 of further investigation in FIR No. 12/2010 registered against the petitioner, there appears no reason to still continue the petitioner under suspension and the rejection & nuances of the clarification made by the District Collector (Land Records), Ajmer vide order Dt. In the instant case, after there is a stay granted by this court vide order Dt. 30.04.2013 of further investigation in FIR No. 12/2010 registered against the petitioner, there appears no reason to still continue the petitioner under suspension and the rejection & nuances of the clarification made by the District Collector (Land Records), Ajmer vide order Dt. 24.07.2015, as already observed, is a hyper-technical approach and in contravention of the Government's own circular Dt. 03.06.2006. 16. At the same time, while examining the application submitted by the petitioner for revocation of his order of suspension, apart from the circular Dt. 03.06.2006, the authority is under obligation to review as to whether after five years down the line, is it in public interest to continue the employee under suspension and what purpose is going to be served, more particularly when the petitioner is going to be retired in near future, there appears no justification in making payment of 75% of subsistence allowance to him while asking him to sit idle particularly when it is not a case where the petitioner is involved in the charges of corruption in discharge of his duties. 17. In totality of the matter & in the facts and circumstances which are brought on record, this court is of the view that prolonged suspension of the petitioner, in the given facts & circumstances, appears to be unreasonable, arbitrary and unjust, more so, when the respondents failed to show any reasonable cause for prolonged suspension of the petitioner. 18. Before parting with the judgment, this court would like to observe that the question of prolonged suspension of Government employee has been considered in various decisions by this court and so also by the Apex Court but still there cannot be a straitjacket formula which can be laid down and each case has to be looked into on its own facts. Technically one may be correct in approach that if suspension is not a punishment & recognized by law, how far it deserves to be interfered with by the court in exercise of its power of judicial review u/Art. 226 of the Constitution but the ground reality is that it is more worse than a punishment. It results into humiliation of an employee not only amongst the members of the family but also in the eyes of the society where he roams around. It results into humiliation of an employee not only amongst the members of the family but also in the eyes of the society where he roams around. A disciplinary authority or its superior authority is empowered to place an employee under suspension with a view that departmental or judicial enquiry which is proposed against him ordinarily is not to be hampered with and the delinquent employee is punished for his misdeeds but at the same time, either because of a departmental/judicial enquiry, it has to be proceeded expeditiously since it results into grave & serious consequences. It not only demoralizes the Government servant but on the other hand Government has to pay him subsistence allowance from the public funds for a long period without taking any work from him and virtually a delinquent is being paid for sitting idle. 19. The Government has issued circulars & guidelines from time to time for expediting the departmental/judicial enquiry which are pending against the Government servants for those who are under suspension but practically those remain only guidelines & have never been adhered to. It is all the more expected that when a Government servant is placed under suspension either because of departmental or judicial enquiry, it should be conducted expeditiously without loss of time & if it is not possible to conclude pending enquiry expeditiously for any good reason or beyond control, at least the Government servant cannot be allowed to remain under suspension for indefinite period and review has to take place from time to time as to whether continuance of suspension is in public interest and if this is not done, the executive Government keep a Government servant under suspension for any number of years and in case eventually the charges are found to be groundless or not proved, it may have to pay him heavy arrears of salary, etc. 20. Although, R.13(5) of the Rules, 1958 provides for review but it is left to the authority to exercise its power of review whenever considers appropriate but at the same time, under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, Part-IV R.10 of the Rules, 1965 deals with suspension & this court would like to bring to the notice that sub-rule (6) & (7) of the R.10 of the Rules, 1965 have been added under Chapter-IV of Suspension to R.10 vide Notification No. 11012/4/2003-Estt.(A) Dt. 23.12.2003 published in the Gazette of India on 03.01.2004 and it will be appropriate to quote sub-rule (6) & (7) to R.10 of the Rules, 1965 being relevant for the present purpose read ad infra:- "10. Suspension (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 before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of 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 eighty days at a time. (7) 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." 21. Sub-rule (6) & (7) to R.10 of the Rules, 1965 mandate the competent authority to review the cases of Government servants who are placed under suspension within a particular time frame and there shall be a Review Committee to be constituted which is mandated to examine such cases of Government Servants who are placed under suspension with a further rider under sub-rule (7) that if the Review Committee fails to pass an order within time for which the period of suspension was extended, the suspension shall automatic become invalid by fiction of law. 22. 22. It appears that the rule making authority in its wisdom has kept a proper check & balance in re-visiting the cases of the Government Servants who are place under suspension and this court is of the view that the State Government may also look into the provisions which have been added in the CCA Rules, 1965 viz., sub-rule (6) & (7) to R.10 of the CCA Rules, 1965 which certainly may keep a track over the cases of Government Servants who are placed under suspension and the present prevalent practice that no one in the State Government considers to review for a sufficient long time unless being called upon either when the matter comes to the court or on the personal request of the Government Servant to the authority but if we take note of sub-rule (6) & (7) to R.10 of the CCA Rules, 1965, it is mandatory for the Review Committee to revisit the order of suspension and has to record its satisfaction as to whether it deserves to be extended or be revoked in the given facts & circumstances. 23. What this court wants to say is that at least the Review Committee has to apply its mind in taking decision as to how far the continuance of suspension is in the public interest vis-à-vis the fact is that the Government Servant gets 50% of the subsistence allowance for 6 months and then 75% while sitting completely idle and certainly what has been paid to him is from the public funds for the things to commensurate. 24. This appears to be a logical way by which the Government Servants who are placed under suspension their cases deserve to be reviewed from time to time as mandated under the Rules, 1965 by the Government of India and this pattern appears to be better in keeping a track over the cases of the Government Servants who are placed under suspension even otherwise review in the matter of suspension is the legal right of the employee under suspension and this court left it open for the State Government to examine and make suitable amendments, in meeting out the requirement of law. 25. Consequently, the instant writ petition succeeds & is allowed. The continued suspension of the petitioner is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to revoke suspension of the petitioner Dt. 25. Consequently, the instant writ petition succeeds & is allowed. The continued suspension of the petitioner is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to revoke suspension of the petitioner Dt. 31.10.2011 within fifteen days and he shall be reinstated in service on the post held by him. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan for perusal & necessary compliance.