- (1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner I challenging the orders passed by the respondents directing him to attend the roll call during his period of suspension. According to the petitioner, he is employed in the West Bengal Police Department. At the relevant time he was posted in the Sealdah Government Rly. Police Station as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. As a sequel to an incident on 2nd of August 1974 a charge sheet was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause. By an order dated 12th of August 1974 he was placed under suspension. By this order he was further directed to attend usual roll calls during the period under suspension at Police lines, Sealdah. Thereafter by a notice dated 22nd of November 1974 it was stated that if persons specified therein, including the petitioner herein, do not attend the Roll Calls, their subsistence allowance will be kept 'held over' and the period of non-reporting will be dealt with according to W.B.S.R. Regulations. This was followed by an order dated 9th April 1975 by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Traffic & Railways, Government of West Bengal, wherein it was stated that the decision of this Court in case of (1) Bhabesh Kumar Pal v. State, reported in AIR 1965 Calcutta 347 does not prevent the authority concerned to direct the police officers under suspension to attend the rolls calls. The extract of this letter was forwarded to the Police personnel specified therein including the petitioner for compliance. They were directed to attend the Roll calls. I should point out that in the case of Bhabesh Kumar Pal (supra) this Court held that the order under Rule 881 making it obligatory on the police officer under suspension to reside on the police lines for an indefinite period amounts to confinement within the meaning of sec. 7 (b) of the Police Act and it amounts to punishment without holding enquiry and it is bad.
(2.) On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that direction to attend roll call is without jurisdiction. The learned Advocate appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has merely been asked to attend the roll call to ascertain whether he has joined service elsewhere or not.
(3.) In my opinion these orders directing the petitioner, who is under suspension pending enquiry, to attend the roll call is illegal and without any authority whatsoever. In the present case there is a subsisting order of suspension pending enquiry. In my opinion in a case of suspension of this nature the employee concerned is not liable to render any service. He is prevented from performing the duties of his office. It amounts to a direction to the person concerned that he should not do service required of him during a particular period. In this context reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (2) V. P. Gindroniya v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., AIR 1970 SC 1495.;