( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the service of the State of Gujarat is challenging by this writ petition, the order dated 12-1-1996 of the respondent No. 1 by which he was placed under suspension. The suspension of the petitioner has been ordered as a criminal complaint has been lodged against him for the commission of the offences under Secs. 66 (1) (b) and 85 (1) (3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The criminal complaint bears F. I. R. No. 9 of 1996 which has been lodged on 8/01/1996 at Palanpur Police Station. The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the respondent-State has the power to place the petitioner under suspension on the ground pending investigation or pending trial of the criminal case under the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The challenge to the suspension order has also not been made in the present case by the petitioner on the ground of mala fides. The learned counsel for the petitioner made two-fold contentions. Firstly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that from the mere fact that alcohol smell was coming from the person of the petitioner or his eyes were red when he went to the chamber of the respondent No. 3 would not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the petitioner was drunk within the meaning of Sec. 85 (1) (3) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. It has next been contended that for constituting an offence under Sec. 66 (1) (b) of the Prohibition Act, it must be shown that the petitioner has consumed liquor. The last submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent- government should have resorted to the power to place the petitioner under suspension only when the nature of misconduct is such that the petitioner could not be trusted to discharge his duties for fear that he may indulge in similar activities elsewhere. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner cited the decision of this Court in the case of J. S. Solanki v. Chief Conservator of Forest, reported in 1986 (1) GLR 41. The Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on paragraph (53) of this judgment. I have given my thoughtful consideration to these submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner.

( 2 ) FIRSTLY, I may make it clear that the petitioner has not been placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental inquiry. As stated earlier, in the present case, the petitioner is placed under suspension because a criminal complaint against him is pending investigation. The F. I. R. has been lodged on 8-1-1996 and the matter is pending investigation. At this stage, I do not consider it to be advisable to give any finding on the contention that no offence whatsoever has been committed by the petitioner as provided under Secs. 66 (1) (b) and 85 (1) (3) of the Bombay prohibition Act. Otherwise, any finding given on this question may affect either of the parties. Moreover, whether the petitioner committed any offence or not is a matter of investigation and then of trial. Whether the petitioner has consumed liquor or not may be decided after taking the evidence in the trial and at this stage when the petitioner is placed under suspension any finding by this Court on this question will materially affect the investigation and ultimately the trial of the case. In the present case, none other than the District Superintendent of Police has noticed that the petitioner has consumed liquor and at his instance the F. I. R. has been lodged against the petitioner. As stated earlier in this judgment, the petitioner has not come out with any case of mala fides against the respondent No. 3. The charges which have been alleged against the petitioner are very serious. The petitioner being a police officer of the State where there is prohibition, he has to see that the prohibition policy is strictly implemented. On the