JUDGMENT
A.P. Ravani, J.
1. Both these petitions arise out of one and the same criminal complaint filed against both the petitioners for the offences under Sections 161, 163, 34 and 201 of the I.P. Code. Consequent upon the aforesaid complaint, both the petitioners have been put under suspension by the Respondent Authorities and the order of suspension passed against each of them is challenged by both the petitioners by filing two different petitions. Both the petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Petitioner of Spl. Civil Application No. 1989 of 1986 was serving as Police-constable in Hatkeshwar Police Chowky, Ahmedabad, while petitioner of Spl. Civil Application No. 2040 of 1986 was serving as P.S.I. in the aforesaid police chowky. The order of suspension is challenged on the ground that even if the complaint is read as a whole, no case of misconduct is made out and the conditions set out in the Government Circular dated July 8, 1978 produced at Annexure ‘B’ and the conditions mentioned in the Police Manual are not satisfied. (It may be noted that the conditions mentioned in the Police Manual and the Circular arc verbatim same). In support of the aforesaid contention the Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this High Court in the case of Bhimsing Saniarsing v. Superintendent of Police reported in 23(2) G.L.R. 410. In the aforesaid case, the question at issue before the Court was whether dismissal of the Police-constable who had not demanded the bribe but in whose presence the bribe was demanded by his superior, can be meted with the penalty of the dismissal or not? The question before the Court in that case was not whether a person against whom allegation of serious misconduct of either accepting or abetting the acceptance of bribe is made, can or cannot be suspended. The basis for dismissal of an employee’ from service and the basis for suspension of an employee from services are not the same and cannot be the same. While considering as to whether an employee should be dismissed from the service or not, there should be finding of grave and serious misconduct based on stricter standard of proof. At the stage of suspension of an employee, the only thing which is required to be seen is as to whether the conditions laid down in the Circular referred to hereinabove, are complied or not.
3. The relevant conditions mentioned in the Circular read as follows:
(a) The Officer or person concerned is involved in a grave misconduct or has committed very serious offence and on the basis of available evidence there is a prima facie case for his dismissal removal or compulsory retirement, and
(b)(i) There is reason to believe that the continuance of the Government servant in active service is likely to hamper the inquiry or investigation or to afford opportunity for interference with the witnesses or tempering with the evidence; or
(ii) His continuance in service is likely to accord (sic afford) him an opportunity to indulge in the commission of similar misconduct or offence as envisaged in B.C.S.R. 156.
In respect of any other irregularity or misconduct, suspension should not be resorted to.
4. It should be clear that what is required to be seen by the Court is not as to whether employee will be punished by the criminal Court. In such cases the standard to be applied by the Court would be as to whether on reading the complaint itself, process can be issued against the delinquent or not. If there is some allegation in the complaint or there is any other evidence or material with the department which indicates the involvement of the employee in “grave misconduct” (mark involvement should be in “grave misconduct” and not necessarily in a criminal offence), that would be sufficient to prima facie hold that the concerned employee is involved in gross misconduct. May be that employee concerned ultimately get himself exonerated from the charge levelled against him. But that is not to be seen at this stage. If the grave misconduct alleged against an employee pertains to a criminal offence, allegation in the complaint justifying issuance of process against him may, and in cases of corruption and misappropriation to public money should, be held sufficient to hold that employee is involved in a grave misconduct.
5. From the aforesaid point of view, if one looks at the complaint which is produced at Annexure ‘A’, it can never be said that the Court before which such complaint be made, would not issue process against the accused. Be it noted that mere demand of illegal gratification is an offence under the relevant provisions of law. How far the employee abetted the acceptance of the illegal gratification and how far is he involved in the offence, is a matter of evidence, that may be led before the Court. The complaint does disclose that petitioner of Spl. Civil Application No. 1989 of 1986 i.e. Madhusinh Bharatsinh did take Rs. 200/- from the complainant. This may be as per the instructions of his superior Mr. Chauhan. But this allegation in the complaint alone is sufficient, at this stage to hold that the petitioner is involved in a serious misconduct of accepting and or abetting the acceptance of the illegal gratification. At this stage, there is a complaint. The matter is to be investigated by the concerned authorities. Further, evidence may be obtained. One does not know what will be the result of the investigation or the trial that may be conducted against both the accused. In the light of the evidence, that may be led by the prosecution, such employee also may be convicted. It all depends upon the evidence that may be led before the trial Judge. By no stretch of reasoning, it can be said that the complaint does not disclose any offence whatsoever against the petitioner of Spl. Civil Application No. 1989 of 1986. Once, the offence and that too serious offence of accepting illegal gratification, is disclosed in the complaint, that should be considered sufficient compliance with the condition No. (A) in the Circular.
6. So far as the condition in Clause (b) is concerned, it may be noted that both the petitioners are serving in Police Department. By the very nature of their duty and the powers which they exercise, they would certainly be in a position to hamper the investigation. Even their presence in the police station would be enough to deter and scare the witnesses whose statements may have to be recorded and who may be examined in the case. Therefore, in the instant case, both the conditions contained in Clause (b)(i) & (ii) of the circular are complied with.
7. The case of the petitioner of Spl. Civil Application No. 2040 of 1986 is still worse. There is direct allegation in the complaint that he did demand Rs. 2000/- from the complainant. In fairness to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, it must be stated that he has not even submitted that no offence whatsoever is disclosed against this petitioner. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it should be held that in the case of this petitioner, both the conditions mentioned in the Circular are complied with.
8. It may be observed that while considering as to whether suspension is justified or not, the Court is not required to sit in appeal over the judgment or decision of the suspending authority. The basis of passing an order of suspension, cannot be equated with the basis which may entail penalty of dismissal or lesser punishment. Punishment is one thing and asking an employee to remain away from the place of his duty and preventing him from interfering with the course of investigation and/or inquiry is altogether a different thing. Similarly, at the stage when an employee is sought to be suspended, the standard which is applicable for conviction in criminal trial is also not to be applied. All that is required to be seen is as to whether an employee is involved in a serious misconduct. Even prima facie, if it is found that an employee is involved in a serious misconduct and if other conditions as laid down in the Circular referred to hereinabove are satisfied, it would be sufficient to put such an employee under suspension. While examining the question as to whether necessary conditions for putting an employee under suspension are complied with or not, it should be borne in mind that public authorities are also required to take into consideration the effect on discipline and morale of service. If an employee who is involved in a serious misconduct of misappropriation of public money, or insubordination is allowed to perform duties during the pendency of inquiry/investigation, it would be almost impossible to maintain discipline in the service. Moreover, members of the public would never come forward to ventilate their genuine grievances against errant public servants. If immediate effective actions are not taken against the employee concerned members of the public will be discouraged from making complaints. While care should be taken to protect the interests of an employee, the larger perspective of public interest, morale of the service and maintenance of discipline must also be taken into consideration, Again the circumstance that in which particular department, branch or office the employee is serving, has also to be taken into consideration. In a disciplined force, police or para military forces, even slight insubordination is likely to be considered a grave or a serious misconduct, while in some other services it may not be so considered. It is not possible, nor necessary to enumerate various features which are required to be borne in mind while deciding the question regarding suspension of an employee. Not the mechanical adaption and application of the provisions of the Circular and the conditions mentioned therein but a reasonable and pragmatic approach keeping in mind the broad perspective indicated hereinabove should be adopted. Therefore, even where the scales are evenly balanced, to err on safer side, it would be proper, in the larger interest of the society, to put the employee under suspension, for at this stage he is not being punished, he is being suspended only pending the inquiry. Moreover, in case the suspension is found to be wholly unjustified, be would be fully compensated. On the other hand, damage that may be done to the entire service and the society will be irreparable.
9. In above view of the matter, both these petitions are liable to be rejected, and they are hereby rejected.
10. At this stage, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners, requests that interim relief granted earlier be continued. In the facts and circumstances of Special Civil Application No. 1989 of 1986, it is ordered that interim relief granted earlier shall continue up to 22-8-1986. This order is based on the concession given by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner shall proceed on leave immediately and shall not attend duty from tomorrow, i.e. on August 9, 1986 onwards. If the respondent authorities do not permit him to proceed on leave, it will not be obligatory for him to proceed on leave.
11. So far as another petition No. Spl. C.A. No. 2040 of 1986 is concerned, it is admitted position that the petitioner has not been permitted to resume the duty. Therefore, the extension of interim relief of ‘status quo’ would serve no useful purpose. On the contrary, it would lead to confusion. Therefore, in the second petition, interim relief stands vacated.