ORDER : 1. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent-State which has refused to consider petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment. 2. Though, no formal order of rejection has been passed on petitioner’s application seeking appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”), but since the respondents have orally refused to give appointment to him as his father was facing suspension, when he died, the petitioner has to knock the door of this Court. 3. The facts apropos are that petitioner’s father – Late Amar Singh Saini was working as Teacher Grade-III in the respondent-Department. 4. During the course of his employment, a criminal case was registered against him for which he remained behind bars and was placed under suspension on 04.10.1994 under Rule 13(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1958”). 5. Suspension of said Amar Singh continued till he passed away on 20.01.2020. 6. As per the record, when said Amar Singh passed away, his age was 56 years. 7. It is noteworthy that by way of memorandum of charges dated 04.09.2017, an inquiry against the petitioner’s father was instituted with a charge that on account of him remaining behind bars, the image of the department has been tarnished. 8. The Inquiry Officer conducted inquiry and gave his report dated 04.09.2017, concluding that there is no direct allegation against the employee and it has no nexus with the employment and department’s image has not been adversely impacted due to his involvement in the alleged crime. The said report dated 04.09.2017 was duly forwarded to Appointing/Disciplinary Authority, but nothing has been done for the reasons best known to the respondents. 9. On account of the death of petitioner’s father, the respondent-State dropped the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner’s father (which were initiated vide charge-sheet dated 04.09.2017). 10. After the death of his father, the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment in the month of May, 2020 under the Rules of 1996. 11. On 08.05.2020, the petitioner’s application for appointment was returned by respondent No.4 for want of service completion certificate. 12. Mr. 10. After the death of his father, the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment in the month of May, 2020 under the Rules of 1996. 11. On 08.05.2020, the petitioner’s application for appointment was returned by respondent No.4 for want of service completion certificate. 12. Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the disciplinary enquiry against petitioner’s father in relation to an incident that took place in the year 1994, was initiated after 23 years of alleged incident and though the Inquiry Officer ruled in favour of petitioner’s father and gave a report dated 04.09.2017, formal decision to exonerate him was not taken. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically submitted that in spite of the report given by the inquiry officer, no decision was taken by the appointing authority and in the meantime, petitioner’s father – Late Amar Singh Saini passed away on 20.01.2020. 14. He submitted that the petitioner’s father for all practical purposes was exonerated and it cannot be said that his services were terminated or had come to an end before the date of his death. 15. It was argued that merely because on the date of death, petitioner’s father was under suspension, the petitioner cannot be denied his rightful claim of compassionate appointment. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was required of the State to have revoked suspension of petitioner’s father at least after a favourable inquiry report was given by the Inquiry Officer. That apart, the Disciplinary Authority was also required to take a final decision in furtherance of the inquiry report. 17. It was submitted that on one hand, the respondents have failed to discharge their obligation and on the other hand, the State is taking an arbitrary stand that petitioner cannot be given compassionate appointment as on the date of death, Late Shri Amar Singh Saini was not in government service. 18. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that indisputably, the petitioner’s father was under suspension till he passed away and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right, particularly when the Disciplinary Authority had not taken any final decision on the delinquency of petitioner’s father. He argued that his suspension was still continuing and family of such employee cannot claim compassionate appointment, which is an exception to the general process of recruitment. 19. Mr. He argued that his suspension was still continuing and family of such employee cannot claim compassionate appointment, which is an exception to the general process of recruitment. 19. Mr. Sharma highlighted the fact that the petitioner’s father has concealed the material fact of he being convicted in the year 1998 for the offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 20. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 21. It is a matter of great concern that an inquiry came to be instituted against the petitioner’s father on 04.09.2017 in relation to an incident which occurred way back in the year 1994. And even after clean chit having been given by the Inquiry Officer on 04.09.2017, the State has not even considered it expedient to revoke suspension of Late Amar Singh. It is all the more shocking that the Disciplinary Authority has also not passed any final order and the file kept on moving from one desk to another for 6 years and ultimately disciplinary proceedings were dropped after he passed away. 22. As a consequence of State’s callous approach, the petitioner’s father suffered mental agony, apart from the suspension till he breathed his last. 23. According to this Court, suspension per-se does not amount to termination of employer – employee relationship and sans a valid order passed in accordance with law, the same cannot be brought to an end. 24. The petitioner’s father by any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be out of the employment, simply because he was placed under suspension. 25. The respondents have firstly done injustice to petitioner’s father by not even initiating disciplinary inquiry for 23 years and then, by not passing final order pursuant to disciplinary inquiry though the inquiry officer had given him a clean chit. As a result of such apathetic approach the petitioner’s father remained under suspension for about 30 years. 26. Now, they are seeking to add insult to the injury by taking an absolutely arbitrary and unsustainable stand that on the date of death, Amar Singh – petitioner’s father was not in service. 27. This Court cannot refrain from observing that enough injustice has been done to the departed soul and his family. 26. Now, they are seeking to add insult to the injury by taking an absolutely arbitrary and unsustainable stand that on the date of death, Amar Singh – petitioner’s father was not in service. 27. This Court cannot refrain from observing that enough injustice has been done to the departed soul and his family. The least the State can do to redeem the wrong done and to recompensate the agony meted out to his family is, -“offer appointment to his dependents” 28. The petitioner’s father was in government job on the date when he departed and since he had passed away while in harness, petitioner cannot be denied compassionate appointment. 29. Adverting to the argument of Mr. Sharma about nondisclosure of the fact of his other conviction, suffice it to say that the same might have a bearing on the services of said employee, but as the State has not taken any cognizance of such fact and has not initiated any proceedings against the petitioner’s father, present petitioner cannot be made a scapegoat for the alleged felony and be deprived of the job on the ground of purported concealment. 30. The petition is, therefore, allowed, denial of appointment to the petitioner is hereby declared illegal. 31. The petitioner shall file a fresh application for compassionate appointment along with all requisite documents which shall be considered by the State expeditiously, but in any case, not later than three months from today. 32. Petitioner’s application shall not be rejected on the ground of delay, if filed within four weeks from today. 33. All interlocutory applications and stay application stand disposed of.