1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R ANUP CHAND SONGARA v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS. S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2839/2006 Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. DATE OF ORDER 21/02/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, for Petitioner. Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, State Counsel, for Respondents. BY THE COURT: By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 26.7.2003 (Annexure 2). The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that almost a period of four years and more has already passed after passing of the suspension order. Thus, not only on the ground of prolong suspension, the said order deserves to be set aside, 2 but even otherwise also, nothing was found against the petitioner in view of the report (Annexure 3) and it seems that for aforesaid reason, even no challan has been filed, pursuant to the FIR, even after the expiry of the period of almost ten years. Hence, there seems no justification for the respondents to keep petitioner on suspension any more. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that though a report favourable to the petitioner has been submitted vide Annexure 3, but the order of suspension could not be revoked as pursuant to the FIR, a challan has to be filed before the appropriate Court. Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am convinced that there exists no justification to continue suspension of the petitioner any more, not only for the reasons argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but also for the reason that it is a case of prolong suspension, inasmuch as, the order of suspension was passed on 26.7.2003 and now, more than a period of four and half years has passed and till date, the petitioner has not been served with the charge- sheet and pursuant to the FIR of 1996, no challan has been filed, as per the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3 In view of the facts discussed above, the impugned order dated 26.7.2003 (Annexure 2) is set aside and the respondents are directed to take the petitioner on duty. However, so far as the treatment to the intervening period of suspension is concerned, if any inquiry is held by the respondents, by issuing a charge-sheet within a period of three months from today, then it will be subject to the final outcome of the said inquiry or even if no challan is filed choose sheet issued within the aforesaid period, then the petitioner would be entitled for the consequential benefits on setting aside of the impugned order of suspension, after the expiry of the period of three months, as directed above. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (MUNISHWARNATH BHANDARI),J. scd