ORDER : 1. Petitioner (a Class-IV employee – Safai Karamchari), is before this Court seeking quashing of an administrative order dated 02.03.2023, vide which, he was suspended from service due to registration of an FIR No.43/2023 dated 18.02.2023 for the alleged offences under Sections 7 & 7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act (Amended), 2018, read with Section 120-B of IPC against the petitioner by the Anti Corruption Bureau. 2. Vide an interim order dated 08.08.2023 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, operation and effect of the impugned suspension order was stayed in the following terms:- “In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8203/2023: 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown to this Court the order dated 02.05.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Anita Khichar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3656/2023 and prays that the interim order be passed in favour of the present petitioner also. The order reads as follows: “1. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submit that in similar issue, the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.05.2022 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7103/2022 (Pintu Lal Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) had granted indulgence and effect and operation of the impugned order was stayed. 2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner further submit that the order dated 02.03.2023 (Annexure-2) while placing the petitioner under suspension, has been passed by the competent authority based on the communication received from Anti Corruption Department, without applying its mind. 3. Submissions have been made and the action of the respondents does not fall within any of the requirement of Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control &Appeal) Rules, 1958. 4. Issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application as well, returnable within a period of four weeks. 5. In the meanwhile and until further orders, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 (Annexure-2)shall remain stayed. 6. Connect and list alongwith SB Civil Writ Petition No.7103/2022.” 2. The aforequoted interim order shall also operate in favour of the petitioner. 3. In view of above, issue notice to the respondents, returnable 08.09.2023. 4. List along with SBCWP No.3656/2023. 5. In the meanwhile and until further orders, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 (Annexure-2)shall remain stayed. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 35/2023:- List alongwith SBCWP No.3656/2023.” 3. 3. In view of above, issue notice to the respondents, returnable 08.09.2023. 4. List along with SBCWP No.3656/2023. 5. In the meanwhile and until further orders, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 (Annexure-2)shall remain stayed. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 35/2023:- List alongwith SBCWP No.3656/2023.” 3. Apropos, petitioner continues to discharge his services without being suspended during pendency of the writ proceedings. 4. Controversy centering on the scope and breadth of the core legal issue concerning the continuation of the suspension of a government servant during the pendency of an investigation or criminal trial in connection with a criminal offence, and the parameters governing the same, have been decided in a detailed order/judgment dated 27.03.2025, rendered by this Court in case title Naru Lal Meghwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14863/2016. 5. The reasons and discussion contained in Naru Lal Meghwal’s judgment shall be read as part and parcel of the instant order and same are not being repeated for sake of brevity. However, it is deemed appropriate that the concluding part of the judgment be reproduced for ready reference, which is as below: “ 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 office could prejudice the investigation or trial. 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 office 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 sufficient 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 official. 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 official. 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 official, 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.” 6. 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.” 6. Resultantly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents (the disciplinary/suspending authority of petitioner) to take a fresh decision under Rule 13(5) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 qua the impugned suspension order of the petitioner in light of the judgment, ibid. Till the proposed decision is taken, the interim protection granted to the petitioner by this Court, as above, shall continue to enure to his benefit. In case the suspension is not revoked by the disciplinary/suspending authority, a speaking order shall be passed and the petitioner shall be given 30 days to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Rule 22 of the CCA Rules 1958, who shall decide the appeal within the time limit as prescribed in the judgment, ibid, and the interim order passed by this Court shall continue to operate in favour of the petitioner subject to any further orders to be passed by the Appellate Authority. All issues raised by the petitioner are left open to be looked into by the competent / appellate authority, as the case may be. 7. Disposed of accordingly. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.