( 1 ) THE petitioners are Police personnel. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 9613 of 1992 and so also the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 9614 of 1992 are in the cadre of Police Sub-Inspectors. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 9615 of 1992 and the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 9616 of 1992 are in the cadre of Police Inspectors. The petitioners want us to examine the propriety or otherwise of the orders of suspension passed against them. The impugned orders of suspension recite that, there were large scale riots, resulting in loss of life and property in particular areas and petitioners, who were Police personnel in control of the areas, failed to prevent such incidents, and it is decided to hold a detailed inquiry against the petitioners; and until a decision is rendered in the Departmental Inquiry, the petitioners shall be placed under suspension. There was a strenuous endeavour on the part of mr. Arun H. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioners, to demonstrate that, on facts, the petitioners could not be stated to be culpable. We may straightaway point out that, the stage is not yet set for making a pronouncement on this question one way or the other. That will fall within the domain of the Inquiry authority or Disciplinary Authority, as the case may be.

( 2 ) HERE, we are asked to examine the legal propriety of orders of suspension. Hence, we are bound to recapitulate the principles, which should guide Courts while examining the question of the present nature. Courts are not concerned with the sufficiency of the satisfaction arrived at by the authority making the order. This is left to the subjective satisfaction of the authority. Such matters are not automatically and as a matter of course justiciable by courts. While there could be an examination by Courts as to whether an opinion was formed at all, but sufficiency of the grounds cannot be inquired into. The Court cannot substitute its own satisfaction for that of the authority. There may be interference if extraneous or irrelevant matters are taken note of or there has been a total non-application of mind, or the action is patently perverse, unfair or unjust or tainted with mala fides. Though the materials placed may not satisfy the Court, the task of the Court is only limited to an investigation as to whether there was any foundation of fact at all or whether irrelevant and extraneous circumstances have weighed with the authority while passing the impugned order. The fact that different formation of opinion or satisfaction is possible for the Court is no ground to quash the order.

( 3 ) MR. Arun H. Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, on facts, it is legitimate to hold that it is a case of non-application of mind and action prompted by improper motive and mala fides. But, when we look into what exactly weighed with the respondents for making the impugned orders of suspension, we are not able to say that there was no material relevant before the respondents, while passing the impugned orders of suspension. As to the situation that was taken note of, there is a summary in the affidavit-ill-reply filed in Special Civil Application No. 9613 of 1992, and the said summary runs as follows :" xxx I respectfully submit that the following table will clear the gravity and seriousness of the misconduct of the petitioner. Total deaths : 158. Police Commu- Commu- Uniden- Total station nity A nity B tided 1. Chok Bazar 34 3 - 37 2. Udhna 9 7 6 22 3. Varachha 36 8 - 44 total 79 18 6 103 i respectfully say that it is clear from the above mentioned table that 103 persons out of 158 persons have died in 3 Police Stations, wherein the petitioner or a like suspended Police Officers, have been on duty at the relevant time. I further respectfully say that it is also evident from the above mentioned table that 79 people have died belonging to one community in these 3 Police Stations only.