ORDER : Arun Monga, J. 1. Petitioner (a Geologist), is before this Court seeking quashing of an administrative order dated 21.03.2018, vide which, he was suspended from service under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, on account of grant of prosecution sanction in connection with registration of a corruption case bearing No.161/2010 under Sections 13(1)(d) and 19(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Vide an interim order dated 18.07.2018 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, operation and effect of the impugned suspension order was stayed in the following terms:- It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned suspension order has been passed without application of mind and recording satisfaction about the twin conditions envisaged under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'CCA Rules'). It is also argued by learned counsel that there is no semblance of proof about any pecuniary loss to the Government on account of alleged acts or omissions of the petitioner. Learned counsel has also argued that rates of drilling in the areas having mineral reserves in soft formation were determined/settled by the State Government vide Notification dated 26th of November 1997 (Annex.6) and accordingly the bills were prepared at the Directorate level. Mr. Dave has further argued that as per communication of the Geological Survey of India dated 28.09.2010 (Annex.11), Lignite and associated rocks of Palana Formation found in Nagaur and Bikaner districts of Rajasthan fall under the category of “soft rock" and the area where drilling was carried out falls within the Bikaner District. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the entire drilling work was completed way back in the year 2002 and the petitioner is sought to be castigated after a lapse of more than one and a half decade when he is at the fag end of his service career. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the DOP, Ms. Kusum Rao, submits that the order of suspension is in consonance and conformity with Rule 13 of the CCA Rules. It is also submitted that FIR is lodged against the petitioner for offence under Section 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 120- B IPC, and therefore, suspension order has been rightly issued. Kusum Rao, submits that the order of suspension is in consonance and conformity with Rule 13 of the CCA Rules. It is also submitted that FIR is lodged against the petitioner for offence under Section 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 120- B IPC, and therefore, suspension order has been rightly issued. Lastly, learned counsel contends that suspension is not a punishment. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar. While it is true that suspension is not a punishment but at times its severity and injurious effect can be judicially noticed. In the instant case, the very edifice of suspension order is grant of sanction for prosecution and that too for an incident which relates to 2002 when the petitioner is on the verge of retirement. The material available on record are also prima facie not disclosing pecuniary loss to the State Government due to the alleged omission of the petitioner. Admit. Issue notice. Ms. Kusum Rao, accepts notice on behalf of respondent. No.1 & 2, therefore, notice qua these respondents are waived. Issue notice to respondent No.3 & 4. Heard on stay. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, operation and effect of the order dated 21.03.2018 (Annex.22) shall remain stayed. However, it is made clear that petitioner may not be assigned field duties.” 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. 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 affirmative 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.