JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.7.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court, whereby he has allowed respondent’s WP (C) No. 3942 of 2015. 2. The respondent while serving as Commandant of Assam Industrial Security Force (AISF) Battalion No. 1 and In-Charge District Home Guards Commandant, Tezpur was arrested on 12.11.2012 for offences under Sections 120B/409/420/468/477 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(a)(c)/(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide case No. 4219/2011 registered at Police Station Tezpur. The respondent was ultimately released on bail after more 1½ months. And since his arrest exceeded 48 hours, he was suspended by the Principal Secretary, Home Department vide order dated 20.11.2012 from the date of detention. This order was passed under Rule 6(2) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. On 10.1.2013, the respondent made a representation to the Principal Secretary seeking revocation of his suspension. As no order was passed on his representation, the respondent filed WP (C) No. 7309/2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.02.2014 directing the Principal Secretary to take a decision on it by a speaking order within 15 days. Alleging that no decision is taken thereon, the respondent filed WP (C) No. 3942/2015 seeking quashment of his suspension. The learned Single Judge placing reliance on Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 1964 has held that there was no justification for respondent’s continuation of suspension and quashed the suspension order dated 20.11.2012 with a direction that he be reinstated in service forthwith. Aggrieved, the State has filed the present appeal. 3. The learned Single Judge placing reliance on Rule 6(2) of the Rules, 1964 has held that there was no justification for respondent’s continuation of suspension and quashed the suspension order dated 20.11.2012 with a direction that he be reinstated in service forthwith. Aggrieved, the State has filed the present appeal. 3. Rule 6(2) of the Rules reads as under:- “6(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 such detention, by an order of the Appointing Authority and shall remain under suspension until further orders: Provided that where the detention is made on account of any charge not connected with his position as a Government servant or continuance in office is not likely to embarrass the Government or the Government servant in the discharge of his duties or the charge does not involve moral turpitude, the Appointing Authority may vacate the suspension order made or deemed to have been made when he is released on bail or is not otherwise in custody or imprisonment.” 4. The above quoted Rule 6(2) makes it clear that a Government servant who is detained in criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding 48 hours shall be deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of such detention. And as per the proviso, if such detention is not connected with his position as a Government servant or continuance in office of the Government servant is not likely to embarrass the Government or the Government servant in the discharge of his duties or the charge does not involve moral turpitude, the Appointing Authority may vacate the suspension order in the event the Government servant being released on bail or is not otherwise in custody or imprisonment. 5. Admittedly, charge sheet has been filed against the respondent for offences relating to Special Case No. 4/2015. However, the respondent has obtained a stay order in Criminal Petition No. 3/2015 on the further proceedings of criminal case. 5. Admittedly, charge sheet has been filed against the respondent for offences relating to Special Case No. 4/2015. However, the respondent has obtained a stay order in Criminal Petition No. 3/2015 on the further proceedings of criminal case. We are of the considered view that continuance in office of the Government servant who is facing a trial for serious offences such as cheating and corruption is bound to embarrass the Government for the fact that government servant is a public servant and public must have full trust in the Government servant whom they approach for redressal of their grievances. The learned Single Judge overlooked this aspect of the matter while quashing suspension order of respondent. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the writ appeal. We also direct the Registry to immediately list Criminal Petition No. 3/2015 before the appropriate Bench as per roster for its early decision.