JUDGMENT : N.V.ANJARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nasir Saiyed for the petitioner and learned advocate Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jayneel Parikh for the respondent state and its authorities. 2. The challenge in this petition is directed against order of suspension passed against the petitioner on 30th March, 2016. The petitioner has prayed to set aside the order and to revoke the suspension. 3. The petitioner came to be appointed as Junior Assistant Electrical Inspector, Class-II. He was on probation for two years in the pay scale of 6500-200-10500. On 23rd February, 2011, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Electrical Inspector on ad hoc basis on 20th December, 2010, subsequently regularised on 23rd February, 2011, and came to be transferred to Godhra. 3.1 It appears that a complaint against the petitioner alleging commission of offence under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 came to be filed against the petitioner. An FIR being Crime Register No. (I) 3 of 2016 dated 21st February, 2015 came to be registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested and since he remained in the custody for more than 48 hours, he was placed under deemed suspension from 02nd February, 2016 to 19th February, 2016. The petitioner was released on regular bail by order dated 19th February, 2016 by the competent court. 3.2 The suspension was continued. The respondent authority went on passing orders extending the suspension period. The petitioner has stated that the chargesheet was already filed by the police authorities before the competent court. The petitioner requested the respondents to reinstate him by cancelling the suspension. While representing for revocation of suspension, it was submitted by the petitioner that long time had elapsed and departmental proceedings were not initiated and that continuation of suspension was unreasonable. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the suspension continued arbitrarily only on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings wherein charge sheet was already filed. It was submitted that even when the suspension period was extended by the various orders no reasons were stated. It was stated that resolution dated 23rd March, 2005 produced by the respondents along with the affidavit-in-reply contained the guidelines which are breached in case of the petitioner in continuing the suspension for long three years. It was submitted that even when the suspension period was extended by the various orders no reasons were stated. It was stated that resolution dated 23rd March, 2005 produced by the respondents along with the affidavit-in-reply contained the guidelines which are breached in case of the petitioner in continuing the suspension for long three years. 4.1 As against this, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the respondent authorities were within their right to suspend the petition who was facing trial for offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was submitted that every time the report was called for regarding progress of the criminal case before extending the suspension period. 4.2 The petition was contested by filling affidavit-in-reply in which respondent No.1 inter alia mentioned about the filling of the First Information Report against the petitioner; his detainment in custody and further that their action is backed by the powers vested in them under Rule 5 of Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. It was stated that the suspension of the petitioner was time to time extended. The respondent produced resolution dated 23rd March, 2005, which deals with the guidelines for reviewing the cases of the employees placed under suspension, which inter alia provided that suspension would be reviewed every six months after the chargesheet is served. It was mentioned that in such cases, where the criminal case was registered and police had filed chargesheet and period of more than one year has passed, the suspension would be required to be reviewed. The aforesaid condition in the said resolution had the genesis of Rule 5 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, which is extensively referred to hereinafter. 4.3 Giving the details about the extension of suspension from time to time produced along with the affidavit-in-reply the order dated 13th October, 2016 whereby the suspension was extended upto 26th December, 2016. By further order it was treated to have been extended upto 26th January, 2017. By yet another order dated 23rd January, 2017, the suspension was extended and came to be further extended by order dated 25th April, 2017 upto 10th July, 2017. By further order it was treated to have been extended upto 26th January, 2017. By yet another order dated 23rd January, 2017, the suspension was extended and came to be further extended by order dated 25th April, 2017 upto 10th July, 2017. The competent authority passed similar orders extending the period of suspension dated 04th July, 2017, 23rd November, 2017, 04th October, 2017 and several other leading to order dated 18th January, 2019 being the last order whereunder the period of suspension was extended upto 19th September, 2019. At the every interval of 90 days, the suspension period was extended. It was stated also that the petitioner was paid subsistence allowance which was increased to 75%. The respondent authorities sought to justify the suspension on the ground that the petitioner was facing criminal case for the alleged offences under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. The Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, in its part-II, deal with the aspect of suspension of a government servant. Rule 5 contains provisions in respect of suspension, which reads as under, “5. Suspension :- (1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered by Government in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension: (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, Provided that, where a Government Servant against whom disciplinary proceeding is contemplated is suspended, such suspension shall not be valid unless before the expiry of a period of ninety days from which the Government servant was suspended, disciplinary proceedings is initiated against him, Provided further that the Government or any other authority empowered by the government by special or general order may at any time before the expiry of the said period of ninety days and after considering the special circumstances for not initiating disciplinary proceedings, to be recorded in writing extend the period of suspension beyond the period of ninety days without disciplinary proceeding being initiated: Provided also that such extension of suspension shall not be for a period of ninety days at a time. (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence involving moral turpitude is under investigation, inquiry or trial :- Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an authority subordinate to or lower in rank than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made. (2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority – (a) … … … (b) … … … Explanation:- … … … (2A) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority competent to modify or revoke the suspension, before expiry of ninety days from @ the effective date of suspension After such review, the competent authority may pass an order either extending or revoking the suspension. The subsequent reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period of suspension. The extension of suspension shall not be for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days, at a time. 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. Provided that no such review of suspension shall be necessary in the case of deemed suspension under sub-rule (2),if the Government servant continues to be under suspension at the time of completion of ninety days of suspension and the ninety days period in such case will count from the date the Government servant detained in custody is released from detention or the date on which the fact of his release from detention is intimated to his appointing authority, whichever is later. (3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or … … … (4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or … … … (5) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-rule (2A) An order of suspension made or deemed to … … … (b) Where a Government servant is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended, in connection with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise and any other … … … (c) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may be at any time be modified … … … 5.1 Rule 5 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules above deals with the aspect of suspension to provide that the appointing authority or an authority subordinate to disciplinary authority is empowered to place a government servant under suspension where a disciplinary inquiry is contemplated or is pending. As per the Proviso to sub-rule (1) to Rule 5, such suspension shall not be valid before the expiry of ninety days from the date of suspension, disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings after expiry of the aforesaid period of 90 days would require reasons to be recorded in writing and to be on the conditions mentioned in the subsequent clauses of the Rules. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, in the event of detention, conviction etc., the government servant shall be deemed to have been suspended. Under subrule (2A), it is contemplated that suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 5 shall be reviewed by the competent authority before expiry of ninety days and after reviewing only, the further extension could be passed. It is contemplated that all subsequent review shall be made before expiry of the extended period. It is provided also that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless the same is extended after review, and the review was undertaken before the expiry of ninety days. It is provided also that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) shall not be valid after a period of ninety days unless the same is extended after review, and the review was undertaken before the expiry of ninety days. 5.1 At this stage, noticing the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India [ (2015) 7 SCC 291 ], in that case, the Supreme Court issued time-bound direction for expeditious disposal of the disciplinary proceedings and directed that currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within three months the memorandum of charges is not served on the delinquent employee. It was held that if chargesheet has served, a reasoned order must be passed for extension of suspension. 5.2 The Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (supra) cautioned against undue and unreasonably long protection of suspension by holding thus, “Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate period of its renewal is not based on sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the record, this would render it punitive in nature. Departmental/disciplinary proceedings invariably commence with delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the drawing up of the memorandum of charges, and eventually culminate after even longer delay.” (Para 11) 5.2.1 The Apex Court proceeded to observe its anxiety in the following words:- “Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. The suspended person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of society and the derision of his department, has to endure this excruciation even before he is formally charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or offence, His torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take and inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is, to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement.” (Para 12) 6. Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement.” (Para 12) 6. Adverting to the facts of the case and applying the principles laid down by the supreme court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the provisions of Rule 5 of Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 and stipulations based thereof contained in resolution dated 23rd March, 2005 for dealing with the case of suspension, it would be seen that the order of suspension of the petitioner was passed as back as on 30th March, 2016. It is for long three years that the suspension has been continued. On umpteen times by passing different orders the period of suspension was extended at the every interval. The chargesheet is filed in the criminal case and the suspension came to be continued on the ground of pendency of the criminal proceedings. While the petitioner is entirely right in submitting that none of the orders of suspension were reasoned order and no good reason forthcame which could justify the continuance of the suspension. 6.1 The outweighing aspect of the case is that so far no departmental proceedings against the petitioner have been initiated, no chargesheet is given to the petitioner. The suspension all along as above, came to be continued and protracted without initiation of any departmental proceedings. The prolonged suspension of the petitioner in the aforesaid facts and circumstances evidently become arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 7. As a result of the above, the petition is entitled to succeed. Suspension order dated 30th March, 2016 against the petitioner and further extension thereof, are hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be taken back in service, which shall be done immediately and in no case within 10 days from the date of receipt of copy of the present order. The petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Direct service is permitted. Petition allowed.