Satyabrata Sinha, J. - (1.)The judgment of the Court was as follows: The Petitioner in this application has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- " A) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus ii) Commanding the respondents and each of them to recall, rescind, withdraw or to cancel the purported order of suspension dated January 16, 1995, the penultimate portion of the order of suspension dated January 17, 1995, the purported charge-sheet dated February 3, 1995 and the purported order of the Appellate Authority dated May 30, 1995 as contained in Annexure "A", "B", "C" and "E" herein: ii) Commanding the Respondent No,2 herein to appoint any other Divisional Security Commissioner, R.P..F. South Eastern Railway as a Disciplinary Authority of the Petitioner in this instant case and to direct the Respondent No. 4 herein not to act as a Disciplinary authority of the petitioner. iv) Declaration of Rule 143.2 of R.P.F. Rules 1987 ultra vires So far as the last relief is concerned, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has not pressed the same.
(2.)The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three contentions in support of the application. It is firstly contended that the order of suspension passed against the petitioner was violative of rule 135 of the Railway Protection Force Rules in as much as in passing an order of suspension as against the petitioner no public interest was involved. It was next contended that the respondent No. 3 while considering an appeal preferred by the petitioner against an order of suspension has considered irrelevant, fact that the petitioner was also guilty for mis appropriation although no such charge has been levelled against the petitioner. It was next contended that the petitioner has not been supplied copies of very relevant documents. The learned counsel also contended that in any event as the disciplinary authority had made the preliminary enquiry and all the witnesses had attended his Chamber before making deposition and further in view of the fact that the petitioner; himself had asked the Enquiry Officer to examine him as witness, the disciplinary authority is biased against him and in that view of the matter, the petitioner does not expect any justice at his hands. According to the learned counsel, although the petitioner may not be able to prove the actual bias, but the real likelihood of the bias is therein. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel has relied in the case of (1) Subramanian v. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in 1973(1) SLR 521; (2) Dr. K.C. Azad v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 1991(3) SLR; 326(3) Dr. Anil Kumar Saha v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 1985 (2) ChN 291 and (4) Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Ors reported in (1988-I-LLJ-256)
(3.)The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the enquiry proceeding would be completed within the period of four weeks. There cannot be any doubt that while suspending an employee in terms of Rule 135 of the Rules, the public interest ought to have been the guiding factor. However, keeping in view the charges levelled as against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the respondent concerned has either acted illegally Or without jurisdiction. It is true as has been submitted by the learned counsel, that the appellate authority misconstrued the charges levelled against the petitioner, but it cannot be said that he has committed any illegality. In any event, in view of the fact that as the enquiry proceedings would be completed at an early date, in my opinion, it is not a fit case where the order of suspension should be directed to be revoked at this stage.
;