G.M. Lodha, J. - (1.) AN alleged corrupt Government officer, arrested in a criminal case, has prayed for quashing of suspension order by the Court under its extra ordinary and equitable jurisdiction. Should this Court interfere with administrative order of suspension, in favour of a petitioner of such alleged misconduct? Was Article 226 enacted by the founding fathers of the Indian Constitution for providing protective umbrella, to alleged accused under Prevention of Corruption Act against whom the allegation is that for lest of money be stooped down to enrich himself even in famine money, at the cost of famine stricken starving villagers? Whether the members of the Legislative Assembly should make recommendations for such alleged corrupt officers facing criminal investigations and further whether such recommendatory letters should be produced in the High Court for getting relief, after they have failed to influence the bureaucracy? After the above untraditional judicial interpretation of scope of judicial review, now the traditional facts. Shri Heeralal, a Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department (B & R), Barmer has filed this writ petition challenging the order of suspension dated 30.6.80 made by the Executive Engineer. The petitioner has made the following prayer in the writ petition: - 14/I That the writ petition may kindly to accepted and the order dated 30.6.80 may be declared to be invalid, and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner immediately with all benefits consequential thereto. 14/II Any other appropriate order which may be considered just and reasonable, in the facts and circumstances of the case may be parsed in favour of the petitioner. 14/III Writ petition may be accepted with costs. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner has made three fold grievance against the order of suspension: (1) That the Executive Engineer was not the appointing authority and, therefore, he had no power to suspend the petitioner, (2) That the persons, who we (sic) similarly situated and were alleged to be guilty of the irregularity or illegality, have been reinstated and, therefore, the petitioner has been discriminated and (3) That the order of suspension was passed in contemplation of an enquiry but more than two years have passed and no enquiry has commenced and, therefore, according to the Government instructions, the order of suspension should have been revoked.
(2.) I have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions of Mr. Mridul and prima facie, the contentions raised are plausible. However Mr. Mridul during the course of arguments fairly informed the Court that in connection with the enquiry of the Anti -Corruption Department against the petitioner, the petitioner was arrested on 4.2.83. In para 6 of the writ petition a mention has been made of it but it has not been mentioned what are the offences for which he has been arrested. This information has changed the entire complexion of the case. The petitioner is a Junior Engineer and in connection with his functioning as such, not only the case involves serious offence of corruption and corruption case is under investigation but he has been arrested and released on bail which means that either during the investigation or after reinvestigation, the police authorities have found a prima facie case against him.
(3.) IT has not been mentioned nor it is shown whether a challan has been filed or is going to be filed very shortly but all that the petitioner has mentioned is that the petitioner has been released on bail and the persons referred to above, have not been arrested so far though according to the petitioner, the police wants to arrest them. In this para, the petitioner has also mentioned that the challan has not yet been filed in this case.;