JUDGMENT 1. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of present writ petition are that the petitioner while holding the post of Police Sub- Inspector was placed under suspension, vide order dated 21.01.2018, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Nagaur, exercising powers conferred upon him by virtue of Rule 13 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'CC&A Rules of 1958'). 2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2018 filed writ petition before this Court being S.B. C.W. No.5127/2020 (Radhakishan v. State of Raj. & Ors.). A co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.07.2020, disposed of the writ petition directing the disciplinary authority to decide the representation made by the petitioner in light of judgment rendered in the case of Manvendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. C.W. No. 4276/2018 at Jaipur Bench. 3. The disciplinary authority pursuant to order dated 24.07.2020, considered and rejected the representation filed by the petitioner on two counts: firstly, the question regarding revocation of suspension can be examined only after expiry of three years from the date of suspension, as per Circular dated 12.01.2011, issued by the Department of Personnel; Secondly, an FIR has been filed against petitioner at P.S., Surpalia for offences punishable under Section 306 IPC and 3(1)(p)3(2)(V) of SC/ST Atrocities Act, wherein challan has been filed against petitioner. It was further stated in the order dated 31.07.2020 that the reinstatement of petitioner would be detrimental to the interest of the disciplined police force. 4. The memorandum of charge sheet dated 19.07.2021 issued against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings had been stayed vide order dated 03.09.2021 in the case of Radhakishan v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. C.W. No.11747/2021). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is facing suspension since 21.01.2018. The prolonged suspension has resulted in undue hardship and stagnation in services of the petitioner. Counsel further submitted that circulars issued by the respondents require examination of suspension order only after a lapse of three years from the date of suspension though, in the present case, even after lapse of three years, the order suspending the petitioner has not been revoked. For strengthening the aforesaid contention, counsel placed reliance on judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Manvendra (supra). For strengthening the aforesaid contention, counsel placed reliance on judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Manvendra (supra). Counsel apprised the Court that in the appeal preferred against the judgment passed in the case of Manvendra (supra) being State & Ors. v. Manvendra Singh (D.B. S.A.W. No.1111/2019), Division Bench emphasized on the need for periodical examination of the suspension orders by the competent authorities to arrive at the conclusion whether the suspension deserves to be continued or the same deserves to be revoked. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that serious allegations have been levelled in the F.I.R. against petitioner, and therefore, the impugned suspension order does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Counsel further submitted that the State Government is in the process of making periodical review of all suspension orders in compliance with the circular dated 12.01.2011. The court was apprised of the fact that in certain deserving cases, orders of suspension have been revoked, and the case of the petitioner will be considered at an appropriate time in light of the terms stipulated in the circular, issued by the Government. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is a settled law that legally and technically suspension is not a punishment. Therefore, order of suspension needs to be examined periodically and objectively by the competent authority considering the nature and gravity of the allegations against an employee. An order of suspension is generally issued to ensure fair, transparent and speedy disposal of criminal/departmental proceedings. 9. This Court in the case of Shaukat Ali v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in WLR 1992(S) Raj. 855, held as under:- "Though technically and legally suspension is not a punishment but the ground reality is that in worse than a punishment. It results in the humiliation of an employee not only before the members of the family but also in the eyes of the world at large. A disciplinary authority or its superior is empowered to place an employee under suspension with a view that enquiry proposed to be held by it is not hampered with and delinquent employee is punished for this misconduct. However, suspension of Government employee without expeditiously proceeding with a departmental enquiry or with a criminal case result in grave and serious consequences. A disciplinary authority or its superior is empowered to place an employee under suspension with a view that enquiry proposed to be held by it is not hampered with and delinquent employee is punished for this misconduct. However, suspension of Government employee without expeditiously proceeding with a departmental enquiry or with a criminal case result in grave and serious consequences. On the one hand, it demoralizes the Government servant; on the other the Government has to pay him subsistence allowance over a long period without taking any work from him and virtually a delinquent officer is paid for setting idle. All Governmental executive action has to be inspired by dictates of reasonableness, unjust and arbitrary actions are anathema to the rule of law. Principles of natural justice require that a departmental enquiry, and for the matter a criminal trial, should be conducted expeditiously and without loss of time. If this is not done, the executive Government may keep a person under continued suspension for any number of years and in case eventually the charges are found to be groundless or not proved, it may have to pay him heavy arrears of salary etc. I am in agreement (with due respects) with their Lordship of the Madras High Court when the say that there is a very clearly a district principle of natural justice, that an officer is entitled to ask if he is suspended from his office because of grave averments or grave reports of misconduct, that the matter should be investigated with reasonable diligence, and that charges should be framed against him within a reasonable period of time and if such a principle were not to be recognised. It would imply that the executive is being vested with a totally arbitrary and unfettered power of placing its officers under disability and distress, for an indefinite duration." 10. Similarly, this Court in the case of Lalit Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. C.W. No.2983/1995), held as under: "10. It is true that suspension is not a punishment to an employee and its effect is that though an employee continuous in service, he is not permitted to work during the period of his suspension. To suspend an employee is a recognised power of the employer. (S.B. C.W. No.2983/1995), held as under: "10. It is true that suspension is not a punishment to an employee and its effect is that though an employee continuous in service, he is not permitted to work during the period of his suspension. To suspend an employee is a recognised power of the employer. It is also true that suspension is essentially a measure in aid to disciplinary proceedings or criminal investigation or trial; and court would not normally interfere with such interim orders unless it is passed by an authority having no jurisdiction or is passed in an arbitrary manner without application of mind on all the relevant facts or is otherwise malafide exercise of power. However, this is one aspect of matter. The other reputation and status and it always has a demoralising effect on him. The concerned authority is also expected to review the order of suspension if there is unreasonable delay in concluding the inquiry or trial. Similarly the nature of allegations, graveness of the situation, impact on the public interest and likelihood of interference in the pending inquiry, investigation or trial are some of the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding as to whether an employee should be suspended or not." 11. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manvendra Singh (supra) held that revocation of suspension order of a Government servant needs to be assessed appropriately by the concerned authority exercising powers under Rule 13(5) of Rules of 1958, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of offence(s) alleged etc. to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the suspension order deserves to be continued or the same deserves to be revoked. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "10. to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the suspension order deserves to be continued or the same deserves to be revoked. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: "10. From bare perusal of the Rule 13 (5) of the Rules of 1958, it is manifestly clear that the power of the authority concerned to revoke the suspension order exercising his discretion is not inhibited by any conditions and the suspension order is permissible to be revoked at any time and thus, the circular issued by the State Government providing for consideration of matter of revocation of suspension order only after expiry of the stipulated time since suspension or after filing of the charge sheet cannot been forced so as to curtail the power of the competent authority to revoke the suspension order at any time for justifiable reasons. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in holding that executive instructions issued by the State Government by way of circulars putting fetters on an independent power of the competent authority under Rule 13 (5) and curtailing the power of appellate authority under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1958, deserves to be ignored. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that while exercising the power under Rule 13(5), the authority empowered was required to consider the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence alleged etc. to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the suspension deserves to be continued or the same deserves to be revoked. 11.A bare perusal of the order dated 11.11.17 reveals that the representation made by the respondent has been declined to be considered by the Superintendent of Police solely relying upon the circular dated 12.1.11 issued by the State Government. We are of the opinion that if the authority concerned has declined to exercise the power conferred under Rule 13 (5) of the Rules of 1958 influenced by the circular issued by the Government which in no manner could be construed to have curtailed the discretion vested in the authority to revoke the suspension order at any time, the matter was required to be remanded to the authority concerned for consideration afresh and the suspension order should not have been straightaway revoked by the learned Single Judge" 12. It can be thus concluded that the order of suspension cannot be used as a punitive tool by the authorities/department. An employee despite an order of suspension is considered a member of the department and therefore, re-consideration of order of suspension should be made in reasonable period of time. A criminal case/departmental proceedings can take a long time to come to conclusion and therefore, it is only fair if the petitioner is posted somewhere else in order to avoid tampering with the evidence or interference with the proceedings of the case. 13. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 21.01.2018 by the competent authority exercising power under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958. In the criminal case lodged against the petitioner, challan has already been filed. The charge sheet dated 19.07.2021, issued against the petitioner for conducting disciplinary proceedings had been stayed by this Court. There is no allegation in the reply that the petitioner is hampering with the criminal or disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the respondent-department. Further there is no allegation against the petitioner of influencing the witnesses in any manner. It would be unreasonable and unjust if the order of suspension dated 21.01.2018 is not examined by the respondents for revocation. 14. In view of discussion made herein above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The speaking order dated 31.07.2020, passed by respondent No.4, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for revocation of suspension order afresh, in accordance with law, keeping in view the law enunciated by this Court on this issue. The respondents shall be at liberty to post the petitioner at a place where he would not be in position to obstruct/ influence the progress of criminal proceedings/departmental proceedings pending against him. The entire exercise shall be undertaken by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 15. No order as to costs.