( 1 ) THE petitioner is serving as Deputy Manager in the Production Centre in the establishment of the second respondent-Society for Training and Employment Programme in the Twin Cities (SETWIN ). The petitioner was placed under suspension by the proceedings of the Managing Director of the SETWIN dated 13-3-1996 under Rule 23 (iv) of the SETWIN Employees Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1983, for short the CCA Rules pending further investigation and enquiry against the petitioner. This order was issued by the Managing Director in pursuance of the order of the Government, G. O. Rt. No. 218, Industries and Commerce (SES) Department dated 12-3-1996 directing the management of SETWIN to place the petitioner and four others under suspension pending enquiry. The Government, further, by the impugned proceeding, G. O. Rt. No. 235, Youth Advancement Tourism and Culture (Ses) Department dated 18-6-1998 continued the suspension of the petitioner beyond 12-3-1998.

( 2 ) NO charges are yet framed against the petitioner. However, in the counter filed by the first respondent it is stated that the enquiry revealed that the petitioner had drawn a sum of Rs. 45,000. 00 as advance for purchase of raw materials, but he failed to produce the relevant vouchers, stock entries, and he did not choose to get the advance adjusted immediately. Nothing concrete is said or laid in the counter filed by the management of SETWIN justifying the continued suspension of the petitioner. The allegations arc vague and general in nature.

( 3 ) THE only question which arises for consideration is whether the continued suspension of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is justified and legal or whether it is arbitrary and unreasonable.

( 4 ) THE power of the management of SETWIN to place the petitioner under suspension in contemplation of and/or pending departmental enquiry is not contested before the Court. The power of suspension or to extend the period of suspension has to be exercised with circumspection, care and after application of mind. The employer must make a fair and proper assessment of the matter in the given circumstances and carefully scrutinise that prima facie there exists grave and compelling circumstances which in the light of the material available and collected during the preliminary enquiry or investigation would lead to the likelihood of the removal or dismissal of the employee from service. Although suspension of an employee in contemplation of or pending enquiry as such does not violate any of his legal right, it should not be forgotten that the suspended employee is subjected to social ridicule, condemnation and humiliation; he is looked down by colleagues, friends, kith and kin and he lives a life of tarnished image, infamy and agony. A proper judgment exercised would prevent unnecessary harassment and humiliation of suspension. Suspension should not be resorted to as a matter of course unless the allegations against the employee are serious. The employer, before resorting to suspension, shall consider whether the continuation of the delinquent would be detrimental to public interest or would hamper the enquiry or whether the delinquent, if continued in the post, is likely to tamper with official records relating to the allegation or charge or influencing the witnesses. If there are no such facts, suspension of delinquent will not be justified. The Calcutta High Court, in the case of U. S. Singh v. Coal India Limited, 1994 (2) SLR (Calcutta) 77, held that an order of suspension shall not be made in an arbitrary manner and any order of suspension, if casually made, will cause harm and suffering to the concerned employee. If after suspension enquiry is unduly delayed or prolonged, then, it will be an indication to show that the suspension is not bona fide. An employee who is placed under suspension in contemplation of enquiry or pending enquiry is entitled to ask on suspension that the matter should