ORDER : N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the request and consent of the parties appearing through their respective learned advocates, the petition was taken up for final consideration today. 1.1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondents waives service of Rule. 1.2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondents. 2. By filing present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the orders of suspension against the petitioner dated 8.8.2018, 11.12.2018 and 8.3.2019. It is prayed to hold and declare that the suspension of the petitioner was rendered invalid in law. 3. Noticing the relevant facts, the petitioner was appointed as Beat Guard in Social Forestry Range, Vaghodiya with effect from 6.7.1983. Thereafter, he was transferred during the tenure of his service on two different places in the year 2014. The petitioner came to be promoted as Forester and placed Karjan Range, Vadodara. He was thereafter given charge of Range Forest Officer. At that time, the First Information Report came to be filed against the petitioner dated 18.9.2017 in respect of alleged offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was arrested in that connection and came to be released on regular bail on 26.9.2017. 3.1. In view of above events, since the petitioner was retain in custody, he came to be suspended by order dated 9.10.2017 of the Conservator of Forest, Godhra Division. The suspension was effected from 18.9.2017. 3.2. After the aforesaid order dated 9.10.2017 placing the petitioner under suspension from 18.9.2017, for the first time, it was on 8.8.2018 that the Conservator of Forest as respondent No. 4 herein passed order extending suspension which was sought to be done from 17.3.2018 to 12.9.2018. Further order of extension of suspension came to be passed on 11.12.2018 and 8.3.2019. These are the orders which are brought under challenge in the petition. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the provisions of Rule 5(2) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 to contend that it was incumbent in law to the respondent authorities to review the suspension period within period of 90 days. These are the orders which are brought under challenge in the petition. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the provisions of Rule 5(2) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 to contend that it was incumbent in law to the respondent authorities to review the suspension period within period of 90 days. It was submitted that till date, no departmental action has been initiated against the petitioner, yet the suspension has been continued. It was further submitted that in view of non-initiation of the departmental enquiry, the suspension would automatically stand invalid in terms of the provisions of the Rules. 4.1. The petition and prayers were contested by filing affidavit-in-reply. In the reply, after reiterating the facts to state that the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 18.9.2017, it was stated that the suspension period of the petitioner was due to expire on 16.12.2017 at the end of 90 days. It was stated to accept that the suspension period of the petitioner ought to have been extended on or before 16.12.2017 but could not be extended. It was further highlighted that by subsequent order dated 8.8.2018 and other, suspension was extended and continued. It was contended that during these times, the petitioner was paid the subsistence allowance which the petitioner accepted. It was, therefore, contended that the petitioner was estopped from raising objection to the suspension, more particularly when the suspension was subsequently extended and continued to the knowledge of the petitioner. 5. The relevant portions of Rule 5 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 may be looked at, "5. It was, therefore, contended that the petitioner was estopped from raising objection to the suspension, more particularly when the suspension was subsequently extended and continued to the knowledge of the petitioner. 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 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. From the facts of the present case, two undisputed facts emerged. Firstly, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 18.9.2017 by order dated 9.10.2017. The said order was passed under Rule 5(2) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. Under the Rules, therefore, the suspension was liable to be reviewed at every interval of 90 days from the date of suspension. There is also no gainsaying of the fact that any departmental proceeding has not been initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner's suspension has been continued. 6.1. When the departmental action is not started, Proviso to Rule 5(1)(a) would come into play. It is contemplated in the proviso that government servant against whom disciplinary proceeding is contemplated is suspended, such suspension shall not be valid unless before the expiry of a period of 90 days from which the government servant was suspended, disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings shall not be initiated against the petitioner, suspension against him would lapse at the expiry of 90 days period. This 90 days period is expired when reckoned from 18.9.2017. The suspension order would stand invalid in eye of law. 6.2. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings shall not be initiated against the petitioner, suspension against him would lapse at the expiry of 90 days period. This 90 days period is expired when reckoned from 18.9.2017. The suspension order would stand invalid in eye of law. 6.2. The provisions of Rule 5 contain further conditions in respect of extension of suspension of a government servant. It is provided that the suspension would be required to be revealed at the interval of 90 days and that such review has to take place before such interval of 90 days at each stage gets expired. In the present case, after the original suspension order dated 9.10.2017 placing the petitioner under suspension with effect from 18.9.2017, there was no review of the suspension. The first extension order was placed as late as on 8.8.2018 which was after period of 10 months. This period of 10 months was a vacuum during which the suspension was not reviewed, nor, was extended. The suspension of the petitioner, thus, lapsed in eye of law. 6.3. While it was sought to be contended on behalf of the respondent authorities that the petitioner was estopped from challenging suspension when he accepted the subsequent extension of suspension and further accepted the amount of subsistence allowance, the contention has no merit to be accepted inasmuch as there cannot be estoppel against the operation of law. When proviso to Rule 5(1)(a) and Rule 5(2)(a) operated to render the suspension illegal, the impugned orders could not be allowed to hold the field to keep the petitioner under continued suspension. 6.4. 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. 6.5. 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. 6.5. 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 21.8.2018, 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. 6.6. In view of above aspects and the legal position discussed, the suspension of the petitioner stood rendered invalid in law. It had already lapsed by virtue of operation of the Rules. Subsequent orders dated 8.8.2018, 11.12.2018 and 8.3.2019 extending suspension could not have been passed. There also tainted with illegality not to be allowed to stand. 6.7. Resultantly, the impugned orders dated 8.8.2018, 11.12.2018 and 8.3.2019 are hereby set aside. It is held and declared that the suspension of the petitioner stands rendered invalid in eye of law. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service to be allowed to discharge the duties. The suspension shall be treated to have been lapsed with effect from 18.12.2017 and from the said date, the petitioner would be entitled to full salary. The arrears so arising and payable to the petitioner would be paid within period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. 7. The petition is allowed as above. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.