ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. The appeal arises out of the order dated 25.02.2019 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, challenge to order dated 12.09.2012, extending the period of suspension for a further period of 180 days, is dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case for decision of the appeal are while the appellant was working on the post of Inspector in Rajasthan Police, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 08.02.2010. The order of suspension was challenged and an order was passed by this Court 19.03.2012 with certain directions with regard to payment of subsistence allowance and consideration of pay or revocation of suspension order. Thereafter, in purported compliance of the order passed by this Court, an order was passed on 12.09.2012, extending the period of suspension for a further period of 180 days. This order came to be challenged mainly on the ground that suspension could not continue beyond a particular limit, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India and Others, (2015) 7 SCC 291 . Learned Single Judge, having been apprised by the respondent that the writ petitioner was placed on suspension on account of criminal case registered against him and that charge-sheet was also issued and further that a departmental inquiry is still pending against him, disposed off the writ petition with the direction to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six months and further pass a reasoned speaking order either revoking suspension or extending the same in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (Supra). 4. Against the aforesaid order passed by learned Single Judge, this appeal has been preferred. 5. In the meantime, under the directions of this Court, departmental inquiry had been concluded and an order has been passed on 30.10.2019, imposing penalty and also giving treatment to the period of suspension. 6. In view of the subsequent developments, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in so far as the treatment, which has been given for the period of suspension, he may be permitted to raise all the grounds which are available to him under the law in the matter of challenge to the said order dated 30.10.2019. 6. In view of the subsequent developments, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in so far as the treatment, which has been given for the period of suspension, he may be permitted to raise all the grounds which are available to him under the law in the matter of challenge to the said order dated 30.10.2019. He, however, would submit that as suspension was not extended beyond 180 days with effect from 12.09.2012, it came to an automatic end on 12.03.2013, whereas the appellant attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2013. Therefore, it is argued that the appellant is entitled to full salary for the aforesaid period. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent referring to circular dated 10.08.2001 of State Government would submit that it has been resolved as policy that unless the concerned public servant is not acquitted of the charges, suspension be not revoked. He would submit that in the departmental inquiry, charges have been found proved and penalty has also been imposed. It is further submitted that the appellant would be treated to be under suspension even though, no specific order was passed for extending period of suspension beyond 180 days because the criminal case had remained pending against him and is still pending against him. 8. We have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 9. It appears that when the appellant challenged the order of suspension by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3597/2011, this Court passed an order dated 19.03.2012 with certain directions. Thereafter, an order was passed on 12.09.2012, extending the period of suspension for a further period of 180 days. Admittedly, this period has expired on 12.03.2013. Thereafter, no order has been passed extending the suspension of the appellant. The arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General is that circular dated 10.08.2001 operates to continue the suspension, cannot be accepted because the circular is not law. Suspension of a government servant is governed and regulated by provision contained in Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. This Rule has been framed by the Governor in exercise of its power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing in this Rule, which provides for continuation of suspension even without there being any order only on the ground that criminal case is pending. This Rule has been framed by the Governor in exercise of its power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. There is nothing in this Rule, which provides for continuation of suspension even without there being any order only on the ground that criminal case is pending. In the absence of there being specific provision of automatic continuation of suspension, even though, the period of suspension has come to an end, circular cannot be taken recourse to continue suspension beyond the period prescribed in the order dated 12.09.2012. 10. Otherwise also, the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra) is clear. The respondents could not have even continue the suspension beyond that period. Therefore, in view of the above, we are of the view that in so far period from 12.03.2013 to 30.09.2013 is concerned, appellant shall be treated in service until his date of superannuation. He is entitled to full salary for the said period from 12.03.2013 to 30.09.2013. 11. In so far as, continuation of suspension up to 12.03.2013 is concerned, in view of the fact that now final order has been passed in the disciplinary inquiry on 30.10.2019, we give liberty to the appellant to challenge that order on the grounds available to him under the law regarding suspension aspects. It would be open for the appellant to raise ground that the period of suspension ought not to have deprived him of the salary for the entire period of suspension and the authority shall be bound to decide the same keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra). 12. In view of the above consideration and directions, this appeal stands partly allowed in the manner as indicated above. 13. Appellant shall be entitled to salary for the period from 12.03.2013 to 30.09.2013.