The main legal point established is that public servants charged with corruption should be kept away from office until they are judicially absolved, regardless of the delay in trial proceedings.

D. B. BHOSALE, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) RULE, returnable forthwith. Mr. Pitale, learned counsel waives service for the respondents. By consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing.

( 3 ) THESE writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are directed against the common judgment and order dated 19-12-2003 rendered by the Maharashtra administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, mumbai in Original Application Nos. 1086, 1088, 1089 and 1091 of 2003 by which all the original applications filed by the respondents seeking quashing of their suspension and reinstatement have been allowed. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment, has directed the petitioners to reinstate all the respondents in non-executive posts till the conclusions of theif trials in the criminal eases pending against them under the provisions of Prevention of cerruption Act, 1988 (for short "the said Act" ).

( 4 ) THE respondents-original applicants, at the relevant time, were working in the police department on different posts. The respondent in Writ Petition No. 242 of 2005 was working as a police Sub-Inspector at badlapur police station, District Thane. The respondents in Writ Petition Nos. 261 and 259 of 2005 were working as police head constables at Wagle Estate Police Station and thane City Traffic, Thane respectively and the respondent in Writ Petition no. 233 of 2005 was working as a senior clerk in the office of the commissioner of Police, Thane. All the respondents were trapped by the anti- corruption bureau and were caught red handed and in pursuance thereof the criminal cases have been registered against them under the provisions of the said Act. Based on the report ot anti-corruption bureau, the petitioners placed them under suspension by the orders dated 19-08-2003, 28-03-2003, 02-12-2002 and 06-05-2002 respectively. The respondents had taken exception to the said orders and preferred representations to the petitioners requesting for revocation of the suspension order and since their request was either not considered or turned down they preferred the aforementioned original applications before the tribunal. Admittedly, the criminal cases have been registered against all the respondents under the provisions of the said Act and the cases are pending for disposal before the concerned courts.

( 5 ) THE orders of suspension were assailed by all the respondents on two grounds, firstly, that the petitioners have discriminated in not revoking the orders of suspension for 18-24 months which is causing tremendous hardship not only to them but to their families and, secondly, hearing of their cases is not likely to commence in near future and hence they may be reinstated. In support of their first contention it was pointed out that in case of some other officers in the police department who were similarly placed, the petitioners had revoked the orders of suspension and allowed them to resume on duty pending their criminal cases in courts. Reliance was also placed OB the order passed by the tribunal dated 16-10-2003 by which the orders of suspension had been set aside in Original Application Nos. 572, 573 and 574 of 2003, filed by some other officers working in the police department, who came to be reinstated pending criminal cases against them. It is against this backdrop the tribunal after considering the factual matrix and having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment recorded its reasons for allowing all the applications filed by the respondents. The relevant observations read thus :"10. Irrespective of the ground of discrimination, the fact remains that in these cases the applicants have been placed under suspension for over 18 months in almost all cases and in some cases for nearly two years. It is not the case of the Respondents that the applicants are likely to tamper with evidence or influence the witnesses