( 1 ) IS it open to the State Government Competent Authority to both transfer and suspend the Government servant against whom an enquiry touching his integrity is under contemplation or actually pending or whether only one of the two alternatives is available? Is the principal question which arises for determination in these two writ petitions?

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the present two petitions briefly stated are as under: facts of Spl. Civil No. 86 of 1985 the petitioner J. S. Solanki a Range Forest officer stationed at Dharampur Dist. Bulsar came to be suspended by an order dated 7/07/1984 annexure-A to the petition on the allegation of having prepared false vouchers made for payment of wages to labourers and for encashing a cheque of Rs. 20 0 after having left the charge of his post. During the suspension period his Headquarters came to he changed to Rajkot. The petitioner contends that the order of his transfer-cum-suspension is malafide and contrary to the guidelines laid down by the Government. Facts of Spl. Civil Appln. No. 3660 of 1985 the petitioner A. D. Chaudhari Sub-Inspector of police Ahmedabad City came to be suspended by an order dated 3-5-1984 as prosecution was launched against him under sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code for accepting illegal gratification from one Rajendrabhai Shivrajsing Bharodia. The impugned order of suspension annexure-A further states that during his suspension. his Headquarters will be at Surendranagar. He challenges the Order of suspension on the ground that it is malafide and contrary to Government guidelines.

( 3 ) IN both the petitions the principal contention which the delinquents have raised is that no delinquent can be simultaneously transferred and suspended for the same charges. On this and other allegations the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 86 of 1985 sought certain interim orders from this Court. A Division Bench consisting of P. S. Poti; C. J. (as he then was) and I. C. Bhatt J. by an order dated 29-1-1985 granted interim stay of the operation of the suspension order observing:"it is well settled law that suspension is not to be conceived as a punishment but is really to be intended to remove the officer from his sphere of activity since it may be necessary to find out facts from people working under him and it would be embarassing to the office concerned as well as those who were his associates in his office if in his presence the enquiry is held. We are supported by the decision in the case of Government of India v. Tarak Nath 1971 (1) S. C. C. 734 that such a situation can be avoided either by transfering or by temporarily putting him out of action by suspension. The same question has been considered elaborately in a decision of High Court of Kerala in K. K. Ramankutty v. State of Kerala and another (1972) (2) L. L. J. 509. At Paragraph 28 of the judgment the circumstances in which transfer or suspension the alternative would be justified are considered by the Court. When pending inquiry into allegations a person is transferred to a distant station which puts him out of action in the area where he is said to have been responsible for the misconduct. there will be no need for suspension for at is intended to achieve the same purpose. Prima facie that is the case here and there is the further fact that despite the operation of suspension for six months no progress has been made. That is why we grant him interim stay of further operation of the suspension order".

( 4 ) IN the other petition Special Civil Application No. 3660 of 1985 no interim relief was granted as the petition was set down for early final hearing.

( 5 ) THE principal question which therefore arises for consideration is whether it is open to the Government to both suspend transfer a Government servant against whom an enquiry is contemplated or is actually in progress or who is prosecuted or who is facing prosecution for alleged