JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the Notification dated 29.4.2020 issued by respondent no. 3, whereby the petitioner has been put under suspension with immediate effect and further for a direction to the respondents not to give effect to the said notification after release of petitioner from judicial custody on 5.6.2020. Prayer for direction upon the respondent has also been made to grant the entire remaining salary to the petitioner from the date of his joining on 6.6.2020. 3. As per the factual matrix, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in G.L.A. College, Daltonganj under Ranchi University on 3.3.2008, pursuant to recommendation of Jharkhand Public Service Commission. Alleging serious discrepancies in the selection process of Lecturer, pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2007, through which the petitioner was selected, a Public Interest Litigation, being W.P.(PIL) No. 3594 of 2011 was filed before this Court. In view of direction passed by this Court, Anti Corruption Bureau, on the basis of the preliminary enquiry, lodged a case, being RC 4(A)/2013-R dated 30.4.2013 under sections 120-B, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the officials of Jharkhand Public Service Commission and other persons including this petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner was arrested on 18.3.2020. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the Vice-Chancellor (respondent no.3) in exercise of power vested with him under the Jharkhand State Universities Act put the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect i.e. on 29.4.2020. After release from judicial custody on 5.6.2020, the petitioner gave his joining in the College on 6.6.2020. When his joining was not accepted and no revocation order was passed, in spite of several representations made by him, the petitioner is constrained to knock the door of this Court for appropriate relief. 4. The respondent-University filed its counter affidavit stating inter alia that on the legal opinion of the learned Advocate General, Jharkhand about revocation of the suspension of the petitioner, the Syndicate on 27.7.2021 vide Agenda No. 16/21 resolves not to revoke the suspension of the petitioner. 5. Mr. 4. The respondent-University filed its counter affidavit stating inter alia that on the legal opinion of the learned Advocate General, Jharkhand about revocation of the suspension of the petitioner, the Syndicate on 27.7.2021 vide Agenda No. 16/21 resolves not to revoke the suspension of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assiduously argues that the suspension of the petitioner is deemed to have been revoked on joining of the petitioner on 6.6.2020 after his being released from custody and if a fresh order of suspension could not have been passed by giving valid reasons, in view of clear term of Section 69 of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000. Learned senior counsel further submits that the respondent University has adopted pick and choose policy in revocation of suspension order, inasmuch as, in similar situation, one Dr. Santosh Swaroop Shandilya, Assistant Professor, working in Sanskrit B.S.College, Lohardaga under Ranchi University, who was also arrested in connection with the same case, was put under suspension with effect from 20.7.2020 and after his being released on bail, his suspension was revoked on 8.12.2021. Learned senior counsel further submits that in view of the provisions of section 69 of the said Act, when no fresh order of suspension was passed against the petitioner, he was entitled to his regular salary from the date of his joining in the college on 6.6.2020. Learned counsel lastly submits that continuation of the petitioner under suspension has unnecessarily humiliated and adversely affected the dignity and prestige of the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel places heavy reliance upon the decisions in the cases of Nand Kishore Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2000 SCC OnLine Pat 783, Prof. Lal Chandra Churamani Nath Sahadeo Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors,. reported in 2001 SCC OnLine Jhar 116 and Pawan Kumar Kedia Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors, reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 1257. 6. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed by respondent-University. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent University has submitted that when the University got information that the petitioner was arrested for the offence of Prevention of Corruption Act, he was put under suspension with immediate effect. The State of Jharkhand & Ors, reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar 1257. 6. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed by respondent-University. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent University has submitted that when the University got information that the petitioner was arrested for the offence of Prevention of Corruption Act, he was put under suspension with immediate effect. Learned counsel referring the statements made in counter affidavit submits that when the petitioner gave his joining in the college, legal opinion was sought from the learned Advocate General, Jharkhand. The Syndicate on the basis of the legal opinion and considering the gravity of charges levelled against the petitioner, has decided not to revoke his suspension presently. As such, learned counsel submits that there is no requirement for interference by this Court. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions and the materials on record, I find that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Admittedly, a criminal case was lodged against the petitioner and he was suspended on that ground, when it came to the knowledge of the University. After release on bail, the petitioner joined the college on 6.6.2021, but neither his joining was accepted nor his suspension order was revoked till date. Moreover, the order of suspension does not disclose the pendency of the departmental proceeding or any contemplation to initiate the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. On the issue of suspension, an opinion was sought from learned Advocate General of Jharkhand. However, on the basis of legal opinion, the Syndicate has decided not to revoke the suspension order of the petitioner. 8. From bare perusal of the legal opinion, it is apparent that the learned Advocate General opined that until and unless, a fresh and specific order of suspension is not passed disclosing the reasons for continuance of suspension, the petitioner is entitled for his revocation. In the instant case, no fresh and specific order of suspension has been passed by the University. 9. In the case of Satya Narayan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1978 BBCJ 208 , similar question arose, wherein, the Patna High Court held that after the employee is released from custody, then in order to put him under suspension, a specific order has to be passed. 10. Similarly, in the case of Sidh Nath Jha Vs. 9. In the case of Satya Narayan Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1978 BBCJ 208 , similar question arose, wherein, the Patna High Court held that after the employee is released from custody, then in order to put him under suspension, a specific order has to be passed. 10. Similarly, in the case of Sidh Nath Jha Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1988 BLJR 1129, a Division Bench of this Court observed as follows:- "Since the petitioner was arrested by the police on 1.8.1987 and was released on bail on 14.8.1987, during that period, he shall be deemed to be suspended by operation of law under Rule 99 of the Bihar Service Code. The petitioner cannot challenge the order of suspension so far this period is concerned. So far the period after he was released, i.e., from 15.8.1987, the competent authority, if so advised, ought to have passed the order under Rule 100 by disclosing the grounds on which suspension of the petitioner was necessary. So far Annexure 2 is concerned, nothing has been said why the petitioner was required to be suspended under Rule 100, because it does not disclose that any departmental proceeding was pending or contemplated or he was suspended because he was accused in the criminal case." 11. Similar view was expressed by this Court in the case of Nand Kishore Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2000 SCC OnLine Pat 783. 12. The Statue has been framed under section 34 of the Universities Act, 1976, wherein, clause 10 deals with suspension of an University servant, which reads as under:- "10.(1) A University servant should be placed under suspension for reasons to be recorded in writing and while doing so the following principles may be observed:- (i) If a University servant is being prosecuted on a criminal charge, he should be placed under suspension if he has been refused bail by the Court and has been committed to prison. (ii) In cases of criminal prosecution, a University servant should be suspended if the charge against him is such that on being found guilty of it, he is likely to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment or on which he would be dismissed or removed from service, in a departmental enquiry. (ii) In cases of criminal prosecution, a University servant should be suspended if the charge against him is such that on being found guilty of it, he is likely to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment or on which he would be dismissed or removed from service, in a departmental enquiry. In such case however the order of suspension need not be passed in every case immediately after congnizance has been taken. In suitable cases it may be passed after charges have been framed. (2) Where a University servant is being proceeded against departmentally on charges of gross misconduct, bribery, corruption or dereliction of duty, the question of suspension should be considered with reference to the prima facie evidence available against him. If there are good reasons to believe, on the basis of material available at the time of the initiation of the proceedings, that the University servant has been guilty of gross-misconduct or dereliction of duty or bribery or corruption which, if proved, would lead to his dismissal or removal, he should be placed under suspension. In cases in which such prima facie evidence is lacking at the start, the question of suspension of the University servant may be kept pending till the findings of the enquiring officer are available. In such cases he should be required to proceed on such leave as may be due to him, and, if there is no leave to his credit, on extra-ordinary leave. On the conclusion of the enquiry, if it is found that the University servant is guilty of gross-misconduct or dereliction of duty or bribery or corruption which would entail his dismissal or removal from service, he should be placed under suspension. (3) In all cases where there are reasons to believe that the University servant, if allowed to continue in active service, might attempt to tamper with the evidence, he should be required to proceed on such leave as may be due to him, or if there is no leave to his credit, on extra ordinary leave. If he refuses to proceed on leave, he may be suspended: Provided that the period of suspension of such university servant shall not exceed one year from the date of suspension except in circumstances beyond the control of the University.” 13. In similar case, this Hon’ble Court in the case of Prof. If he refuses to proceed on leave, he may be suspended: Provided that the period of suspension of such university servant shall not exceed one year from the date of suspension except in circumstances beyond the control of the University.” 13. In similar case, this Hon’ble Court in the case of Prof. Lal Chandra Churamani Nath Sahadeo (supra), while quoting clause 10 of the Statute, held that the order of suspension should have been revoked on release of petitioner from custody and now more than one year having passed, in terms with proviso to sub-clause (3) of Clause 10 of the Statute. 14. In the hand at hand, admittedly, on the basis of criminal case being lodged, the petitioner was taken into custody on 18.3.2020. The University put the petitioner under suspension in view of the provisions of Jharkhand State University Act, 2000, amended upto-date, on 29.4.2020. From perusal of the notification of suspension, it appears that the petitioner was merely suspended as he was taken into custody and there is no other reason shown either in the suspension order or in the counter affidavit. Sub-clause (3) of Clause 3 of the Statute speaks that period of suspension of University servant shall not exceed one year from the date of suspension, except in circumstances beyond the control of the University. Admittedly, the petitioner has been suspended on 29.4.2020 and till date, neither his suspension was revoked nor any fresh and specific order disclosing the reasons for continuance of suspension has been passed. 15. Moreso, respondent University has adopted pick and choose policy in revoking the suspension order in the case of petitioner vis-à-vis Dr. Santosh Swaroop Shandilya, Assistant Professor of B.S. College, Lohardaga, who was suspended on 20.7.2020 on the same ground of judicial custody in the same criminal case, but subsequently, his suspension order was revoked on his being released on bail. But, however, the petitioner’s case is discriminated at the hands of respondent University, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. Law is well settled that having laid down a definite policy, the Government cannot follow the irrational method of pick and choose. Such actions of pick and choose will be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and has to be struck down being contrary to the constitutional provisions. 16. Law is well settled that having laid down a definite policy, the Government cannot follow the irrational method of pick and choose. Such actions of pick and choose will be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and has to be struck down being contrary to the constitutional provisions. 16. As a sequel to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, and legal propositions, I hereby quash and set aside the impugned order of suspension dated 29.4.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to resume and treat him on duty from the date he had submitted his joining report i.e. on 6.6.2020, and the arrears of salary accruing as a consequence thereof shall be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 17. Resultantly, this writ petition stands allowed.