JUDGMENT The petitioner, Pijush Kanti Banerjee who was an Inspector of the Railway Protection Force, Eastern Railway, Andal Line Post, has in his application impugned the validity of an order, dated April 20, 1979 passed by the Security Officer, Asansol placing him under suspension with immediate effect. A copy of this order has been annexed to the petition and marked with the letter 'C'. 2. Mr. Mahitosh Majumdar appearing on behalf of the petitioner, bas contended that the order of suspension is illegal inasmuch as it has not been passed in conformity with Rule 40(1) (a) of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1969 which lays down that a member of the Force can be placed under suspension where an investigation into the charges against him is contemplated or pending. According to Mr. Majumdar, on the day the impugned order was served on the petitioner, there was no investigation contemplated or pending against the petitioner. 3. I directed Mr. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the respondent to produce the relevant records which would go to show whether on the date the impugned order was passed an investigation into the charges against the petitioner was contemplated or pending. Mr. Ghosh has produced the relevant records relating to the petitioner and has drawn my attention to the statement of one Sudhir Mondal D.I.P.F. Asansol who deposed as witness No.1 on 23.6.80 in course of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. In cross-examination, in answer to a question, he has stated that there was no specific case entrusted to him for enquiry, but there was a verbal order to make an enquiry, and that order was not a written order but a verbal order of the ASO/ASN. 4. According to Rule 40(1)(g) of the Railway Protection Force Rules a member of the staff can be placed under suspension when an investigation into the charges against such a member is contemplated or pending. If in fact on the date the impugned order was passed against the petitioner, some investigation to the charges was contemplated or pending against him, surely there should have some order in writing in the relevant file relating to the petitioner. It is difficult for me to believe that an investigation into some charges against a Senior Officer of the Railway Force would be ordered verbally and nothing would be put into writing. It is difficult for me to believe that an investigation into some charges against a Senior Officer of the Railway Force would be ordered verbally and nothing would be put into writing. As such, I must hold that the order of suspension was not passed in accordance with Rule 40(1) (a) of the Railway Protection Force Rules. 5. This application accordingly succeeds and the rule is made absolute and the order dated April 20, 1976 copy being annexure 'c' to the petition is quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to the benefits in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.