ORDER : 1. Petitioner (a Veterinary Officer), is before this Court seeking quashing of an administrative order dated 10.02.2016, vide which, he was suspended from service. He continues to be suspended till date for past 8 years and 2 months. 2. At the very outset, on a Court query, counsel for the petitioner informs that wife of the petitioner lodged an FIR No.305/2015 dated 22.07.2015 against the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 377 and 509 of IPC, and in contemplation of departmental proceedings pursuant thereto, his services were put under suspension on 10.02.2016. From the record appended with the petition and the pleadings, it is not borne out as to what is the current status of pending trial/criminal proceedings. There is no interim protection in favour of the petitioner on his suspension. 3. Be that as it may, in this context, reference may be had to a judgment dated 27.03.2025 rendered by this Court in the case titled Naru Lal Meghwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14863/2016, relevant portion of which, is reproduced hereinbelow:- “ CONCLUSION 25. Two questions thus arise i.e. first, whether a government servant, either accused in an FIR or an under trial in a pending criminal proceeding or proposed to be prosecuted upon grant of administrative sanction for prosecution, can continue to be suspended from service until the conclusion of trial till he is acquitted ? Second, does such a suspension, when prolonged due to delay not attributable to the suspended government servant, constitute a collateral punishment, imposed solely on the state’s harboring a suspicion that the accused government servant will ultimately be convicted in the pending criminal proceedings? In light of the circulars, ibid, and the judicial precedents, the answer to first question is in negative, while it is in afÏrmative to the second. 25.1. There is no quibble about the proposition that a government servant accused of serious offenses—say, corruption, fraud, or moral turpitude—may erode public confidence if allowed to continue in service. Suspension serves as a precautionary measure to prevent the employee from leveraging their position to obstruct justice. The power to suspend is inherent in the employer’s disciplinary authority, particularly when the employee’s continuance in ofÏce could prejudice the investigation or trial. The state has a legitimate interest in maintaining the integrity of public administration. Suspension serves as a precautionary measure to prevent the employee from leveraging their position to obstruct justice. The power to suspend is inherent in the employer’s disciplinary authority, particularly when the employee’s continuance in ofÏce could prejudice the investigation or trial. The state has a legitimate interest in maintaining the integrity of public administration. The pendency of a trial, coupled with the gravity of the charges, justifies keeping the employee out of active duty until the cloud of suspicion dissipates. Seen from that angle, the state may be right to argue that acquittal is the only definitive proof of innocence in such cases, and until that threshold is met, suspension is warranted. But, not quite so in every case. 26. However, on the flip side, prolonged suspension raises serious concerns about fairness, equity, and the presumption of innocence—a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence enshrined in Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reflected in common law systems. Suspension, though not a punishment in theory, has punitive consequences in practice: loss of income (beyond subsistence allowance), stagnation of career, and social stigma. When trials drag on for years—a common reality in overburdened judicial system in India—suspension becomes a de facto penalty imposed without a finding of guilt. The employer state often suspends an employee not because guilt is established but because it harbors a suspicion of eventual conviction. This approach risks inverting the burden of proof: instead of the prosecution proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the employee must endure suspension until they prove their innocence through acquittal. Legally, suspension is an interim measure, not a penalty, is the settled position, yet, when prolonged, its effects mirror those of punishment or “disguised” punishment. 27. This predicament is more evident in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, where delays in trials or granting sanction for prosecution can extend suspension indefinitely. The employee is left in suspended animation, neither convicted nor exonerated, but yet continues to suffer the suspension. Such a scenario offends the principle of ‘audi alteram partem’ (hear the other side) and the maxim ‘nemo judex in causa sua’ (no one should be a judge in their own case), as the employer state unilaterally imposes a sanction without any judicial oversight. 28. Such a scenario offends the principle of ‘audi alteram partem’ (hear the other side) and the maxim ‘nemo judex in causa sua’ (no one should be a judge in their own case), as the employer state unilaterally imposes a sanction without any judicial oversight. 28. In light of the above discussion and Supreme Court judgments, it is deemed appropriate that following guidelines are culled out to be borne in mind by the competent authority/review committee, as the case may be, before ordering suspension, for its further continuation or revocation thereof depending upon case to case : Guidelines for Suspension of Government Servants Due to Criminal Proceedings: I. General Principles - Suspension due to criminal proceedings should be based on objective evaluation, not mere allegations. Innocence is presumed until proven guilty—suspension should not serve as punishment. Suspension must serve the public interest; an FIR alone isn’t sufÏcient ground. Likewise grant of prosecution sanction also must be not, per se, be a mechanical reason to suspend, but there must be a meeting of mind. II. Grounds for Suspension - Suspension may be justified if charges involve corruption, financial misconduct, security threats, or moral turpitude. Continued service may hinder investigation or trial. The employee could influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. The offense undermines public trust in the institution. III. Time Limits on Suspension If no charge sheet is filed by the prosecution in trial court within 3 months, suspension shall not be extended unless special reasons exist and are recorded by the competent authority and conveyed to the delinquent ofÏcial. In case charge sheet is filed in trial court within 3 months of suspension, then the period of suspension should normally not exceed 2 years unless trial is close to completion and it is specifically so noted on the administrative file by the competent authority and such reasons are conveyed in writing to the suspended ofÏcial. If criminal trial is delayed and exceeds 3 years, the competent authority must consider alternatives like transfer to a non-sensitive post, by revoking suspension. Alternatively, specific reasons be again recorded in writing justifying further continuation of suspension and same be conveyed to the suspended government servant. IV. Periodic Review Suspension must be reviewed every 4 months by the review committee and/or the competent authority under Rule 13 (5) of the CCA Rules, 1958. Review must assess trial progress, continued need for suspension, and possible alternatives. IV. Periodic Review Suspension must be reviewed every 4 months by the review committee and/or the competent authority under Rule 13 (5) of the CCA Rules, 1958. Review must assess trial progress, continued need for suspension, and possible alternatives. Continuation must be justified with written reasons. V. Alternatives to Indefinite Suspension- Instead of prolonged suspension, the competent authority must consider Transfer to a non-sensitive role as per Supreme Court Judgment in Ajay Chaudhary vs UOI. VI. Distinction between Serious vs. Minor Offenses Minor offenses (e.g., typically triable by Magistrates but not all) don’t justify suspension. However, serious offenses (e.g., Sessions trials or other such crimes against society or corruption, fraud, harassment etc.) may require immediate action. The decision to suspend must reflect the nature and impact of the offense. 29. In addition to the guidelines mentioned above, this Court deems it appropriate to exercise its writ jurisdiction by issuing a writ of mandamus to the State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, to ensure that all competent authorities vested with the power to suspend government servants adhere to a reasonable timeline for taking further action following a suspension order passed due to pending criminal proceedings. It is thus specifically directed that if a challan/charge sheet is not filed before the trial court within 90 days from the date of suspension order, the suspending authority, upon being approached by the suspended ofÏcial, must decide under Rule 13(5) of CCA Rules whether to continue or revoke the suspension by providing written reasons to the suspended employee. If three years have elapsed since the challan/charge sheet was filed and the trial remains pending, the competent authority must reconsider the necessity of continued suspension and convey reasons in writing. Failure to comply with the specified timelines, as directed, would accord the suspended government servant an indefeasible right to seek revocation of suspension by filing an appeal under Rule 22 of CCA Rules. Further, it is directed that any appeal filed under Rule 22 must be decided by the appellate authority within 30 days of receipt; if not, reasons for the delay must be recorded in writing and communicated to the suspended government servant.” 4. Further, it is directed that any appeal filed under Rule 22 must be decided by the appellate authority within 30 days of receipt; if not, reasons for the delay must be recorded in writing and communicated to the suspended government servant.” 4. In view of the aforesaid, the Disciplinary Authority, under Rule 13(5) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, is directed to take a decision on the further continuation of the suspension in accordance with the judgment, ibid. Likewise, the petitioner shall also be at liberty to challenge his suspension order before the Appellate Authority under Rule 22 of the CCA Rules, 1958, in case a favourable decision is not taken. All issues raised by the petitioner are left open to be looked into by the competent / appellate authority, as the case may be. The decision by the Disciplinary Authority shall be taken within a period of 30 days of the petitioner approaching him, with a web print of the instant order. 5. Disposed of accordingly. 6. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.