( 1 ) THE petitioner who is holding the post of Police Subinspector challenges herein the order of suspension dated July 3 1979 (Annexure A ). The order is passed by the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad and it inter alia recites that the petitioner was placed under suspension from the date of the service of the order pending the out come of the criminal proceedings instituted in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate against him for offences under secs. 307 506 and 323 or departmental inquiry contemplated against him. The order in terms connects the criminal proceedings with an incident which is alleged to have occurred on June 30 1979 and recites that in connection with the said serious misconduct and indiscipline the petitioner was placed under suspension.

( 2 ) THE order of suspension has been challenged in the petition on diverse grounds but only some of those points were canvassed before me at the hearing Hereinafter I shall seriatim deal briefly with the grounds which were urged for my consideration. I Applicability of sec. 25 of the Bombay Police Act 1951

( 3 ) THE submission was that the suspension in the instant case was governed by sec. 25 (1) of the Bombay Police Act 1951 and that in order that suspension thereunder could be ordered the competent authority must be satisfied that the person placed under suspension was cruel perverse remis or negligent in the discharge of his duty or unfit for the same and that in the instant case it was manifest that no such satisfaction was reached before ordering suspension. In my opinion the argument is thoroughly misconceived Sec. 25 (1) deals with punitive suspension and not interim suspension. This is manifest from the context and connection as also from the marginal note. The distinction between the two kinds of suspension is very well known. The Government like any other employer would have a right to suspend a public servant in one of those two ways. It may suspend any public servant pending departmental inquiry or pending criminal proceedings. This is usually called interim suspension. The Government may in another case proceed to hold a departmental inquiry and after the public servant is found guilty may order suspension as a punishment if the rules so permit and this will be suspension was a penalty. In the instant case the order of suspension in terms makes it clear that it is suspension pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings or a contemplated departmental inquiry. Therefore in my opinion sec. 25 (1) is not applicable. It might be incidentally mentioned that under the Bombay Police (Punishments and Appeals) Rules 1956 there is a specific provision with regard to suspension pending an inquiry which is contemplated or is pending or where a complaint of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. The relevant provision is rule 3 (1-A) (i ). The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the State Government in this behalf is authorised under the said sub-rule to place a Police Officer under suspension under such circumstances. The Explanation below the said sub rule makes it clear that suspension thereunder shall not be deemed to be a punishment. The exercise of power of suspension therefore in the instant case is obviously under this provision and not under sec. 25 (1) of the Bombay Police Act. II- Suspension not by the Competent Authority:

( 4 ) THE submission under this head was that the petitioner was appointed by the Special Inspector General of Police and Director of Anticorruption Bureau by his order dated July 22 1974 (Annexure L-3 collectively) and that therefore) it was that authority who was competent to place the petitioner under suspension and not the Commissioner of Police. Now a mere look at the order relied upon shows that it is an order of posting. In terms the order says that the Police Subinspectors named therein were posted in various units on their transfer to A