V. H. BHAIRAVIA, J.

( 1 ) IN this petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of his suspesion and continuation of his suspension period and prayed for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revoke the suspension order dated 13. 6. 1989 (Annex. B) and further prayed to quash and set aside the said order and to reinstate him on his original post of Police Sub Inspector on the ground that continuation of suspension of the petitioner is arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE short relevant facts emerging from the record are that the petitioner was serving as Police Sub Inspector (PSI for short) in Surat (Rural ). While the petitioner was petrolling along with Circle Police Inspector (CPI for short) Mr. Khan on National highway No. 8 between 4. 1. 89 and 5. 1. 89 from 9. 00 p. m. to 5. 00 a. m. , one person was found in suspicious condition and on search of his person, two Revolvers and 8 Bullets were found from him. Therefore, he was taken into custody and a complaint was filed by the petitioner at Kamrej Police Station. The petitioner thereafter reported to Dy. S. P. Surat Shri Patel, who in turn came to Kamrej Police Station and started beating said person (accused ). The petitioner tried to persuade Dy. S. P. Shri Patel for not beating him more as remand of the accused was granted. Thereupon, Shri Patel got excited and started giving threats to the petitioner and CPI Shri Khan. It is submitted that surprisingly Mr. Patel reported to DSP Surat and a complaint against the petitioner and Mr. Khan, CPI came to be filed involving them in the offences punishable under sections 4 and 5 of the tada Act and under sec. 342, 120 (B), 166,167,193,196,199, 211, 213, 218, 220 and 221 of the I. P. Code and under secs. 7 and 13 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under sec. 25 (1) of the Arms Act. It is submitted that the petitioner was immediately came to be transferred from Surat Rural to Baroda Rural Police Station by the order of transfer dated 30. 5. 1989 and was came to be relieved on the same day pursuant to the transfer order dated 30. 5. 1989 (Annex. A ). It is submitted that after the transfer order, within 2 days, the petitioner and Mr. Khan (CPI) came to be suspended by the order dated 13. 6. 1989 (Annex. B ). It has been submitted that the petitioner and Mr. Khan (CPI) came to be discharged from the offences under the TADA Act and Corruption Act by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Surat by his order dated 2. 3. 1990 (Annex. D ). It has been observed by the learned Judge, that there is no case against the petitioner under TADA act and Courruption Act It is further submitted that relying on the observations made by the learned Judge in the order dated 2. 3. 1990 (Annex. D), suspension order of Mr. Khan (CPI) came to be revoked by the respondents by the order dated 28. 2. 1992 (Annex. E ). However, in the case of the petitioner, the respondents refused to revoke suspension order by the impugned order/letter dated 16. 3. 1992 (Annex. F) Hence, this petition

( 3 ) MR. P. B. Majmudar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the continuation of the suspension order against the petitioner is discriminatory, capricious and is in colourable exercise of the powers as it denies the equal treatment to the petitioner. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, along with CPI Shri Khan, have been suspended on the alleged charges as aforesaid. However, the petitioner and Mr. Khan, both were discharged by the designated court by its order dated 2. 3. 1990 (Annex. D) from the offences under the TADA Act and corruption Act. It is further submitted that thereafter, the suspension order of Mr. Khan came to be revoked by the impugned order dated 28. 2. 1992 at (Annex. E) by the respondents. However, die suspension order of the petitioner has not been revoked u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document