JUDGMENT : Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. Through the medium of this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of Order No. CEJ/Adm./340 of 2017, dated 17.10.2017 issued by Chief Engineer, Elect., Maintenance and RE Wing, Jammu, respondent No. 3 herein, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension with immediate effect. The petitioner is also seeking a direction to the respondents to reinstate him as Meter Reader and treat his period of suspension as on duty. 2. The facts, as projected in the petition, are that while the petitioner was working as a Meter Reader, Electrical, Maintenance and Rural Electrification Division, Vijaypur, FIR No. 41/2017 under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of J & K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 came to be registered against him by the Vigilance Organization, Jammu on 14.10.2017. It is averred that after the registration of FIR, vide Order No. CEJ/Adm./340 of 2017, dated 17.10.2017 the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect by respondent No. 3 in terms of Rule 31 of J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956. It is averred that the petitioner was first granted interim bail on 17.10.2017 and then absolute bail on 25.10.2017 by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu. It is averred that since the respondents have failed to expeditiously carry out the investigation after registration of FIR and frame charge sheet within a reasonable time and also failure on their part to serve memorandum of charges upon the petitioner for initiation of departmental proceedings, the petitioner has been compelled to file the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner argued that under Government Instruction No. 1 attached to Rule 31 of J&K Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1956 (hereinafter, for short, CCA Rules), the respondents were under obligation to carry out the investigation expeditiously and frame charge sheet within a reasonable time, if there is any substance in the FIR. He further argued that in terms of said instruction, failure to expedite the investigation and keeping a person under prolonged suspension is arbitrary and unfettered exercise of discretionary powers. He further argued that in terms of said instruction, failure to expedite the investigation and keeping a person under prolonged suspension is arbitrary and unfettered exercise of discretionary powers. He further argued that Government Instruction No. 2 attached to Rule 31 of CCA Rules also provides submission of charge sheet after completion of investigation within a period of three months from the date of suspension and framing of memorandum of charges also within a period of three months in case of departmental proceedings. He, thus, argued that since the respondents have failed to comply with the aforesaid instructions, the order of suspension is required to be quashed. 4. Though counter has not been filed, however, during the course of hearing of this petition on 20.03.2018, Mr. Siddiqui, learned Sr. AAG, stated at the Bar that Challan as yet had not been filed against the petitioner herein. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the writ record. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has rightly been suspended by respondent No. 3 vide order impugned dated 17.10.2017 in terms of Rule 31(2) of CCA Rules after he was arrested by the Vigilance Organization on 14.10.2017 in FIR No. 41/2017 under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) and Section 4-A of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, when he remained in custody for a period longer than forty eight hours. Further, as per FIR, it is the specific case of Vigilance Organization that the petitioner allegedly demanded Rs. 20,000/- from one Kuldeep Chand for providing electricity connection to his flour mill. 7. Now, through the medium of present petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of his suspension order on the ground that for the last more than four months, i.e., with effect from 17.10.2017 till the filing of present petition, neither any charge sheet has been filed before the competent court of law nor any memorandum of charges have been served upon him for initiation of departmental proceedings in terms of Government Instructions (1) and (2) attached to Rule 31 of CCA Rules. 8. 8. Although the petitioner has averred in paragraph-5 of the writ petition that the respondents were under an obligation to ensure that the investigation pursuant to the registration of FIR is carried out expeditiously and charge sheet framed within a reasonable time, if there is any substance contained in the FIR, yet the petitioner has not made the Vigilance Organization, Jammu as party respondent to the petition. Virtually, it is the Vigilance Organization, Jammu, which has arrested the petitioner and registered FIR against him under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) and Section 4-A of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, as such investigation, consequent to registration of FIR, is to be carried out by the Vigilance Organization itself. Further, it is not borne out from the writ record that whether the petitioner had requested for any expeditious investigation of the matter and framing the charge sheet within reasonable period of time in terms of Government Instruction No. 1 attached to Rule 31 of J&K Civil Services Rules. 9. However, during the course of hearing of this petition on 15.03.2018, Mr. Siddiqui, learned Sr. AAG, stated at the Bar that no Challan against the petitioner had been presented till the said date; meaning thereby neither the respondents herein nor Vigilance Organization, Jammu have followed Government Instructions (1) & (2) attached to Rule 31 of J&K Civil Services in their right spirit, when the fact of the matter is that the petitioner came to be arrested by the Vigilance Organization on 14.10.2017 and, thereafter, suspended by respondent No. 3 on 17.10.2017. 10. Further, it is to be seen here that despite levelling of serious allegations of corruption, no show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner since 17.10.2017 when he was placed under suspension, nor any preliminary inquiry has been conducted or any order has been issued for conducting regular inquiry against him as warranted under the CCA Rules. Even, the respondents have failed to periodically review the suspension of petitioner in terms of Government Instruction No. (2) to Rule 31 of the CCA Rules, to see that what steps could be taken to expedite the progress of the court trial/departmental proceedings, so as to reduce the period of suspension to barest minimum. Even, the respondents have failed to periodically review the suspension of petitioner in terms of Government Instruction No. (2) to Rule 31 of the CCA Rules, to see that what steps could be taken to expedite the progress of the court trial/departmental proceedings, so as to reduce the period of suspension to barest minimum. Further, government instructions (1) to Rule 31 of CCA Rules provide that if the matter is not investigated with reasonable diligence and charges are not framed within reasonable period, then it would imply that the authorities are vested with a total arbitrary and unfettered power of placing its officers under disability and distress for an indefinite duration, and the suspension order would be bad in law. The suspension must be a step-in-aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority must keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuation in office while facing departmental inquiry or a trial of a criminal charge. 11. The Apex Court in case titled Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India & Anr., 2015 (2) Supreme 752 , held that the currency of a suspension order should not extended three months, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder: "14. 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." 12. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, Srinagar Bench in case, titled as, Arshad Ahmad v. State of J & K, Writ Petition No. 239/1973 decided on 24.02.1975, while setting aside the impugned order of suspension has held as under: "7........... On the principles set out above, his continued suspension is wholly unjustified and unwarranted by law. It cannot be justified on the plea advanced on behalf of the State that the question whether or not the petitioner should be retained in service is under the active consideration of the Govt. The plea is neither here nor there. It does not so much advance the case of the State as it lays it open. In these circumstances, I am of the option that the continued suspension of the petitioner is illegal and morally discreditable. The plea is neither here nor there. It does not so much advance the case of the State as it lays it open. In these circumstances, I am of the option that the continued suspension of the petitioner is illegal and morally discreditable. It may even be termed as mala fide and vexatious, as the learned counsel for the petitioner put it, for mala fides there need not necessarily by any malice in fact. It is sufficient if malice in law exists, as in the present case." 13. Similarly, another Coordinate Bench of this court in case, titled as, Vijay Kumar v. State of J&K, 1987 SLJ 333, while quashing the order of suspension has held that the executive cannot be vested with a total arbitrary and unfettered power of placing its officer under disability and distress for indefinite duration, and that the charge sheet must be framed against an employee under suspension within a reasonable time. 14. This Bench also in case, Balbir Singh v. State of J & K & Ors., 2015 (2) JKJ 484 [HC], while quashing the order of suspension, has held that after an employee is suspended, he is required to be dealt with under rules immediately and cannot be kept under suspension for an indefinite period. It has further been held that prolonged suspension by itself has the effect of causing distress and agony to an employee. The same view has also been taken by this Bench in SWP No. 1796/2016, titled as, Mukta Sharma v. State & others, decided on 22.12.2017, which has also been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court. 15. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, I deem it proper to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is allowed and Order No. CEJ/Adm./340 of 2017, dated 17.10.2017 issued by respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed. However, petitioner shall not be given any field job till he is exonerated of the charges. Since serious allegations of corruption have been levelled against the petitioner, for which he was also arrested by the Vigilance Organization, Jammu, coupled with the statement of Mr. Siddiqui, learned Sr. However, petitioner shall not be given any field job till he is exonerated of the charges. Since serious allegations of corruption have been levelled against the petitioner, for which he was also arrested by the Vigilance Organization, Jammu, coupled with the statement of Mr. Siddiqui, learned Sr. AAG, that as yet Challan has not been filed nor he disclosed the status of FIR No. 41/2017, in the given circumstances, Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Organization, Jammu is directed to positively conclude the investigation in FIR No. 41/2017, dated 14.10.2017 registered against the petitioner herein within a period of four weeks from today. Respondents herein are also at liberty to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner. Further, the period of suspension of petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of FIR No. 41/2017 as well as departmental proceedings, if initiated by the respondents herein. Connected miscellaneous petition(s), accordingly, stands disposed of. 16. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Organization, Jammu, by or before 02.04.2018.