( 1 ) BOTH these petitions are disposed of by this common order as the facts are common. Both the petitioners were suspended by Director General of Police by orders (Annexure a) dated 28. 8. 1986 in the first case and 20/28. 8. 1986 in the later case. They have preferred these petitions challenging the said suspension orders.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was working as an Armed Reserved Police Sub-Inspector at Bhuj in the office of District Superintendent of Police, Kutch District at Bhuj. 2. 1 the petitioner has stated in the petition that in the month of July 1986, riotous situation arose on account of communal tension in the city of Bhuj and surrounding areas, and he was instructed by D. S. P. Bhuj, respondent No. 3 herein, to take precautionary measures and preventive actions. The petitioner has claimed that in discharge of his duties, he went to the residence of one Darshansinh against whom even on an earlier occasion criminal cases were filed as a. 303 rifle was recovered from him and he was in the list of suspect persons. The said Darshansinh was produced before the Police Inspector on 11. 7. 1986 with a report dated 11/7/1986. He has further averred in the petition that the said Darshansinh filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner and others on 11. 7. 1986 before the Taluka Police Station, Bhuj for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 232 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code, interalia alleging that he was manhandled by the police officers and was threatened. The said complaint was registered as Crime Register No. 143/86. A copy of the same is produced at Annexure b. The petitioner has averred that he was transferred from Reserved Police Sub-Inspector to GRD Police Sub-Inspector, Bhuj by order dated 3. 8. 1986. The petitioner has made a grievance that the order of suspension dated 20. 8. 1986 soon after the transfer order, is nothing but an illegal action. According to the petitioner, as an officer of the Department, he raided the premises of said Darshansinh, and, therefore, on allegations made by Darshansinh, he could not have been suspended. He further submitted that the order of suspension is in utter violation of Regulation No. 372 of the Gujarat Police Manual as well as section 25 of the Bombay Police Act, and the same is against the declared policy of the Government.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was working as Armed Police Sub-Inspector at Police Training School, Baroda. He was earlier working as an Armed Police Sub-Inspector at Bhuj and he was transferred to Baroda by transfer order dated 28. 8. 1985. 3. 1 the petitioner has averred in paragraph 4. 6. of the petition that there were several Court cases where the petitioner was required to be examined as a witness either as an Investigating Officer or as a Police Officer and he was required to attend the concerned Courts at Bhuj and accordingly on 11. 7. 1986 he went to Bhuj for appearing as a witness before the Court at Bhuj. [it is pertinent to observe here that the petitioner has not given any details of case number and the Court before which we was required to attend on that date]. It is further contended in the petition that taking undue advantage of the presence of the petitioner at Bhuj, Darshansinh has filed a complaint against the petitioner as well as PSI Sharma and other police constables involving them in an offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 452 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code.

( 4 ) THE petitioners have annexed a copy of the complaint filed by Darshansinh on 11. 7. 1986. Reading the same it appears that the said Darshansinh is aged about 70 years and was engaged in the activity of cultivation. It appears that he was residing in a farm house situated on a way leading to village Kori from village Sumraser; At about 9. 00 pm. the said Darshansinh and his wife were present and at that time PSI Bishnoi [sca No. 4659/82], PSI Sharma [sca No. 4642/86] and four other police personnel arrived at the residence and