( 1 ) BOTH these petitions arise out of one and the same criminal complaint filed against both the petitioners for the offences under secs. 161 163 34 and 201 of the I. P. Code. Consequent upon the aforesaid complaint both the petitioners have been put under suspension by the Respondent Authorities and the order of suspension passed against each of them is challenged by both the petitioners by filing two different petitions. Both the petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) PETITIONER of Spl. Civil Application No. 1989 of 1986 was serving as Police-constable in Hatkeshwar Police Chowky Ahmedabad while petitioner of Spl. Civil Application No. 2040 of 1986 was serving as P. S. I. in the aforesaid police chowky. The order of suspension is challenged on the ground that even if the complaint is read as a whole no case of misconduct is made out and the conditions set out in the Government Circular dated 8/07/1978 produced at Annexure B and the conditions mentioned in the Police Manual are not satisfied. (It may be noted that the conditions mentioned in the Police Manual and the Circular are verbatim same.) In support of the aforesaid contention the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this High Court in the case of Bhimsing Sardarsing v. Superintendent of Police reported in 23 (2) G. L. R 410. In the aforesaid case the question at issue before the Court was whether dismissal of the Police-constable who had not demanded the bribe but in whose presence the bribe was demanded by his superior can be meted with the penalty of the dismissal or not ? The question before the Court in that case was not whether a person against whom allegation of serious misconduct of either accepting or abetting the acceptance of bribe is made can or cannot be suspended. The basis for dismissal of an employee from service and the basis for suspension of an employee from services are not the same and cannot be the same. While considering as to whether an employee should be dismissed from the service or not there should be finding of grave and serious misconduct based on stricter standard of proof. At the stage of suspension of an employee the only thing which is required to be seen is as to whether the conditions laid down in the Circular referred to hereinabove are complied or not.

( 3 ) THE relevant conditions mentioned in the Circular read as follows: (A) The Officer or person concerned is involved in a grave misconduct or has committed very serious offence and on the basis of available evidence there is a prima facie case for his dismissal removal or compulsory retirement and (B) (i) There is reason to believe that the continuance of the Government servant in active service is likely to hamper the inquiry or investigation or to afford opportunity for interference with the witnesses or tempering with the evidence; or (ii) His continuance in service is likely to accord (sic afford) him an opportunity to indulge in the commission of similar misconduct or offence as envisaged in B. C. S. R. 156. In respect of any other irregularity or misconduct suspension should not be resorted to.

( 4 ) IT should be clear that what is required to be seen by the Court is not as to whether employee will be punished by the criminal Court. In such cases the standard to be applied by the Court would be as to whether on reading the complaint itself process can be issued against the delinquent or not. If there is some allegation in the complaint or there is any other evidence or material with the department which indicates the involvement of the employee in grave misconduct (mark involvement should be in grave misconduct and not necessarily in a criminal offence) that would be sufficient to prima facie hold that the concerned employee is involved in gross misconduct. Maybe that employee concerned ultimately get himself exonerated from the charge levelled against him. But that is not to be