ORDER :

1. The brief facts which necessitated the filing of the Writ Petition are stated hereunder: The petitioner was appointed as a Noon Meal Organiser in the Government Higher Secondary School, Kolapatti, Coimbatore District on 25.10.1993. While she was working, there was an altercation with the neighbours on 26.01.2020, which led to the registration of FIR and registration of a criminal case under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. against the husband of the petitioner and others including the petitioner herein. There was also a counter case by the husband of the petitioner against other neighbours and similar IPC sections have been invoked against them. In the criminal case registered against the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner is shown as third accused.

2. The petitioner was arrested by the jurisdictional police on 28.01.2020, remanded to judicial custody and was subsequently released on bail. As the petitioner having been incarcerated, was placed under suspension vide impugned order dated 22.02.2020. The petitioner, after lapse of considerable time, submitted a representation on 28.08.2020 requesting the authority to revoke the suspension and reinstate her in service. According to the petitioner that a simple altercation and quarrel with the neighbours had resulted in filing of a criminal case against her and her husband, her subsequent arrest.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite a representation dated 28.08.2020 and subsequent oral representations to the authorities, there has been no response from the authorities as yet and no review has been done in respect of prolonged suspension. The suspension was necessitated only because of the criminal case registered against her as a consequence of the wordy quarrel between the petitioner's family members and her neighbour's family members. There was no complaint against the petitioner otherwise in her discharge of duties as a Noon Meal Organiser. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the prolonged suspension is liable to be revoked and the petitioner may be reinstated in service.

4. Mr.V.Manohar, learned Government Advocate appearing for R1 and R3 and Mr.M.Elumalai, learned counsel appearing for R2 would submit that admittedly the petitioner was arrested on the basis of the registration of the criminal case and therefore the Department had no choice except to place her under suspension.

5. However, when the Court has confronted whether there was any review done in the case, there was no affirmative answer. However, it is not in dispute that there was no complaint against the petitioner in her discharge of duties as Noon Meal Organiser and suspension was only because of the criminal case registered against her.

6. This Court considered the submissions and perused the limited materials that are made available on record.

7. The suspension of the petitioner became imperative, as the petitioner was rightly or wrongly arrested on registration of the criminal case against her and others. Therefore, this Court cannot find fault with the administration placing her under suspension vide order dated 22.02.2020. But at the same time, this Court is unable to appreciate as to why the suspension of the petitioner has been prolonged for more than 18 months without any kind of review being done in the matter. This is particularly so, that the Criminal case registered against the petitioner appeared to be a fall out of a common place quarrel between neighbours, which unfortunately led to the registration of the criminal complaint.

8. In matters like this, it is incumbent upon the authorities to review the suspension periodically, so that the employee need not be kept under suspension for an indefinite period of time and particularly in this case, the employee comes from marginal section and being employed as a last grade servant.

9. It is trite to quote the law laid down by the Hon'ble Su