The appointing authority has the discretion to independently decide the suspension of a Government servant, and prolonged suspension without reasonable cause is arbitrary and unjust.

Govind Mathur, J.-By an order dated 111.1992 the petitioner was placed under suspension as a case against him in respect of criminal offence under Section 5(1)(d)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B, IPC, was under trial.

2. By this petition for writ a challenge is given by the petitioner to continuance of his suspension for a period of about 13 years.

3. It is contended by the petitioner that though since November, 1992 he is under suspension but the respondents are not reviewing the same and as such the petitioner is facing stagnation not only in service career but in life too. It is contended that prolong suspension of the petitioner is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust, therefore, the same is required to be revoked.

4. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the petitioner is facing trial for serious charges for criminal offence, therefore, till completion of criminal trial the petitioner is required to be kept under suspension. It is also averred in the reply that as per circular dated 10.08.2001 issued by Government of Rajasthan an employee who is facing criminal trial is not required to be reinstated till he is acquitted from the charges levelled.

5. Heard Counsel for the parties.

6. It is the position admitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension in the month of November, 1992. The appointing authority or any authority to which appointing authority is subordinate or any other authority empowered by Government may place a Government servant under suspension where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. The petitioner being facing a trial for criminal offence was placed under suspension. The Government of Rajasthan by its circular dated 10.08.2001 issued guidelines to its competent officers to the effect that no public servant who is facing criminal trial be reinstated by revoking suspension till he is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The circular referred above relates to the Government servants who are facing criminal trial pertaining to the charges of moral turpitudes. It is true that the petitioner is also facing charges of serious nature involving moral turpitude but in present case it is required to be seen as to whether retention of petitioner under suspension is really warranted in the existing circumstances.

7. It is well settled that an order of suspension is not an order imposing punishment on a person but is an order made against him before he is found guilty to ensure smooth disposal of the proceedings initiated against him. The proceedings so initiated should be completed expeditiously. In event the disciplinary proceedings or the criminal trial, as the case may be do not reach to their logical consequence within a reasonable period then it is required that the appointing authority or the authority competent to place public servant under suspension should review the decision to continue such servant under suspension. This Court in similar circumstances in the case of Shaukat Ali vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in WLR 1992(S) Raj. 855, held as under:-

"Though technically and legally suspension is not a punishment but the ground reality is that in worse than a punishment. It results in the humiliation of an employee not only before the members of the family but also in the eyes of the world at large. A disciplinary authority or its superior is empowered to place an employee under suspension with a view that enquiry proposed to be held by it is not hampered with and delinquent employee is punished for this misconduct. However, suspension of Government employee without expeditiously proceeding with a departmental enquiry or with a criminal case result in grave and serious consequences. On the one hand, it demoralices the Government servant; on the other the Government has to pay him subsistence allowance over a