JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jayneel Parikh for the respondents. 2. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to set aside order dated Nil January, 2019 passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests-respondent No. 4 herein, whereby the suspension of the petitioner came to be extended from 24th January, 2019 to 23rd April, 2019 for a further period of 90 days. The said order was stated to have been passed after reviewing the suspension of the petitioner under Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. 3. Against the petitioner, who was appointed as Forester in the year 2017 under the respondents, First Information Report being Crime Register No. I-03 of 2017 dated 03rd February, 2017 came to be registered for the alleged offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner came to be suspended by order dated 18th February, 2017 by respondent No. 4 on the basis of the said F.I.R. The said order was made effective from 04th February, 2017. While the petitioner was paid suspension allowance at the rate of 50%, the same was increased as per order dated 18th September, 2017, to 75% for the period from 04th September, 2017 to 31st December, 2018. 3.1. After the order of suspension dated 18th February, 2017 giving its effect from 04th February, 2017, chargesheet by respondent No. 4 was issued against petitioner on 17th September, 2018, which was after gap of about eighteen months from the date of suspension. The charge against the petitioner was that the F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner and he had not maintained integrity and devotion in duty to act in a manner unbecoming of a government servant. The petitioner filed reply to the chargesheet on 01st October, 2018. It appears that the suspension of the petitioner came to be reviewed and the same came to be extended from 28th July, 2018 to 25th October, 2018 by order dated 26th July, 2018 of respondent No. 4. It is a position undenied that the suspension of the petitioner was not reviewed after 25th October, 2018. 3.2. It was stated by the petitioner that on 21st January, 2019 he reported for duty but he was not considered to be on duty. It is a position undenied that the suspension of the petitioner was not reviewed after 25th October, 2018. 3.2. It was stated by the petitioner that on 21st January, 2019 he reported for duty but he was not considered to be on duty. Payment of salary to him was stopped with effect from 01st January, 2019. It is the contention that since suspension of the petitioner was not reviewed as above after 90 days, it ceased to operate in view of the provision of the Rules of 1971. 4. In the aforesaid conspectus of facts and events, the dates are not in dispute. The petitioner was initially suspended on 18th February, 2017. While initially the period of suspension of the petitioner was reviewed before expiry of 90 days, it is an undisputed position that last extension was on 24th July, 2018. The 90 days period after the said extension expired on 25th October, 2018. It is further emerges that for the period from 25th October, 2018 to 24th January, 2019 there was no extension of suspension. However after the said gap, respondent authority passed impugned order date Nil January, 2019 to extend the suspension from 24th January, 2019 to 23rd April, 2019. 4.1. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No. 4 to contest the petition, after restating the facts and not disputing the dates of suspension and extension as above, it was contended that petitioner was paid suspension allowance. It was contended that review of the suspension period of government servant involved in the cases of corruption is undertaken by the Committee chaired by the Additional Chief Conservator of Forests and Joint Secretary, Forest Department, which considers the gravity and the status of the criminal case. 4.2. It was stated that suspension order was passed on 26th July, 2018 to operate till 25th October, 2018. However, thereafter the suspension of the petitioner could not be extended as the officials in the Committee serving as Deputy Conservators of Forests had been transferred. It was sought to be contended that even though suspension period of the petitioner could not be extended for the above reason, nevertheless the subsistence allowance for the months of November-December, 2018 was paid to the petitioner and the petitioner enjoyed the same. It was sought to be contended that even though suspension period of the petitioner could not be extended for the above reason, nevertheless the subsistence allowance for the months of November-December, 2018 was paid to the petitioner and the petitioner enjoyed the same. It was further submitted that the suspension of the petitioner from 26th October, 2018 to 23rd January, 2019 was extended by order dated 18th January, 2019 and that the said order dated 18th January, 2019 has not been challenged by the petitioner. 4.3. It was next submitted that as the suspension period of the petitioner was to expire on 23rd April, 2019, case of the petitioner was reviewed and it was thought fit by the Committee to extend the period of suspension from 24th April, 2019 to 22nd July, 2019. In the affidavit-in-reply, a thrust was given that the suspension of the petitioner was on account of he having been caught in allegedly taking bribe pursuant to a trap by the Anti Corruption Bureau officers. The crux of the contentions in the reply affidavit for not extending the suspension from 25th July, 2018 was that the review of the suspension period did not become possible as Deputy Conservators of Forest were transferred and the necessary action to review could not be initiated by the Department. 5. The relevant portions of Rule 5 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 may be looked at. "5. 5. The relevant portions of Rule 5 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 may be looked at. "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. 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. As could be seen from the provisions of Rule 5, it deals with the aspect of suspension of a government servant. The appointing authority or an authority subordinate to disciplinary authority is empowered under Rule 5(1) to place a government servant under suspension where a disciplinary proceedings against government servant are contemplated or is pending. Provision to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 contemplates that such suspension shall not be valid unless before expiry of a period of 90 days from the date of passing of order of suspension, disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the government servant. In other words, it is made obligatory for the authorities to initiate disciplinary action within 90 days' period from the date of placing the government servant under suspension. In other words, it is made obligatory for the authorities to initiate disciplinary action within 90 days' period from the date of placing the government servant under suspension. If there is no initiation of disciplinary proceedings within the aforesaid time period, it would require reasons to be recorded in writing and the extension of suspension would be on the conditions mentioned in the subsequent clauses of the Rule. 5.2. Rule 5(2) is about deemed suspension in the event of detention, conviction etc. of the government servant. Under sub-rule (2A), it is provided that suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 5 shall have to be reviewed by the competent authority before expiry of 90 days. It is further contemplated that the further extension would be passed only after undertaking a review. An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 shall not be valid after a period of 90 days. The same have to be extended after review, with further condition that such review must take place before expiry of currency of 90 days. 6. Viewed in light of the conditions and contemplations in the aforementioned Rule, the action against the petitioner in suspending him, taking place of further events and decisions by the authorities in that regard, were found to be suffering from more than one infirmities. Suspension was ordered on 18th February, 2017. Chargesheet was issued on 17th September, 2018, which was thus after more than one-and-half years. The reasons were not provided, nor seen to be forthcoming when the initial suspension was extended beyond 90 days period without initiating the departmental proceedings at that stage, except that the petitioner was involved in the offence alleged in the F.I.R. which was the ground for initial suspension. 6.1. It is an undisputed position that the suspension of the petitioner which was last extended by order dated 26th July, 2018 upto 25th October, 2018, whereafter there was no extension. It appears that the authorities woke up suddenly and after a period constituting a yawning gap, order was passed dated Nil January, 2019 providing to purportedly extending the suspension period of the petitioner from 24th January, 2019 to 23rd April, 2019. From 25th October, 2018, suspension was not renewed and the period in-between was characterised as one when petitioner's suspension was neither in currency nor was continued. From 25th October, 2018, suspension was not renewed and the period in-between was characterised as one when petitioner's suspension was neither in currency nor was continued. The petitioner stated on oath that he was not even permitted to join the duty. 6.2. The Supreme Court has in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India [ (2015) 7 SCC 291 ] expressed a clear disapproval to continue an employee under suspension for unreasonably long time. It was observed that the suspension is essentially transitory or temporary in nature and must per force and short duration. It was observed that if renewal of suspension was not on sound reasoning contemporaneously available on record, it would render the suspension punitive in nature. 6.3. Advocating the time-bound completion of disciplinary proceedings and eschewing the prolongation of suspension, the Apex Court observed in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) thus, "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) 6.4. Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (supra) was referred to and followed by the Supreme Court in a recent decision in State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government (Home) v. Pramod Kumar IPS in Civil Appeal Nos. 8427-8428 of 2018, wherein in order dated 21st August, 2018, the Supreme Court reiterated that Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (supra) has frowned upon the practice of protracted suspension and held that suspension must be of necessarily be for a short duration. In the facts of the present case, as noted above, the suspension was not only prolonged unduly but it lapsed by virtue of its non-review under the mandatory rules. 6.5. Adverting to the instant facts, the infirmities in the suspension order traveled beyond the unreasonable prolongation thereof. In the facts of the present case, as noted above, the suspension was not only prolonged unduly but it lapsed by virtue of its non-review under the mandatory rules. 6.5. Adverting to the instant facts, the infirmities in the suspension order traveled beyond the unreasonable prolongation thereof. In terms of Rule 5(2A) of the Rules, it was incumbent on part of the authorities if they wanted to extend the period of suspension beyond 90 days and after the expiry of 90 days, to review the same. The extension of suspension period could have been permitted not only after review but by undertaking the review before expiry of on-going 90 days. This was evidently not done. The suspension was not reviewed and not continued after 25th October, 2018. The reason furnished was frivolous that the Deputy Conservators of Forest were transferred. Such reason could not answer the non-compliance of the requirement of the Rule that the suspension was needed to be reviewed in the above manner and within time as prescribed. 6.6. Once the suspension of the petitioner was not renewed before expiry of 90 days and the departmental proceedings were not initiated, suspension could not have been continued. The suspension stood invalidated at that stage itself. Thereafter from onwards 25th October, 2018, for want of extension, the suspension never existed and it was not in currency. The suspension finally lapsed in view of operation of the statutory Rule. Review of suspension at every interval of 90 days and before interval of such 90 days period as contemplated in the Rule was mandatory requirement to be observed by the authorities. 6.7. As the suspension had lapsed in law for want of extension in compliance of the Rules, the subsequent order dated Nil January, 2019 whereby the suspension was sought to be reviewed in the name of extension, was not to remedy the situation. It could not have any effect of reviewing the suspension which had already lapsed. The impugned action reflected in the said order of extending petitioner's suspension after gap from 25th October, 2018, was not sustainable in any way. Suspension could not have been reviewed or extended which had ceased due to operation of the Rules. 7. It could not have any effect of reviewing the suspension which had already lapsed. The impugned action reflected in the said order of extending petitioner's suspension after gap from 25th October, 2018, was not sustainable in any way. Suspension could not have been reviewed or extended which had ceased due to operation of the Rules. 7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the impugned order/communication dated Nil January, 2019 of the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Gandhinagar-respondent No. 4 herein extending and continuing suspension of the petitioner is hereby set aside. The suspension thereby treated as lapse in law and the petitioner shall be treated to be on duty with effect from 21st January, 2019. The petitioner shall be entitled to the regular salary for the period from 21st January, 2019, which may be paid to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Direct service is permitted.