JUDGMENT 1. An alleged corrupt Government officer, arrested in a criminal case, has prayed for quashing of suspension order by this 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 inserted 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 lust of money he stooped down to enrich himself even in famine money, at the cost of famine sticken 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 letter should be produced in the High Court for getting relief after they have failed to influence the Bureaucracy ? Should the temples of justice be polluted by such recommendations? After the above untraditional judicial introspection of scope of judicial review, now the traditional facts. 2. Shri Heeralal, a Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department (B&R), Barmer had 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 be accepted and the order dated 30-5-83 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 passed 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 were 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no enquiry has commenced and, therefore, according to the Government instructions, the order of suspension should have been revoked. 3. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions of Mr. 3. 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. 4. 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 investigation, the police authorities have found a prima facie case against him. 5. It has not been mentioned not 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 time 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. 6. In such circumstances, when a junior Engineer of the Public Works Department, is facing criminal investigation for corruption and has been arrested though released on bail for the came, this Court would not normally like to interfere against the order of suspension. 7. The petitioner who is required in a criminal case and that too of charges of corruption should not be reinstated by this court by revoking suspension. 8. It is true that in the earlier order of suspension, it has been mentioned that the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against the petitioner. But it is obvious that on account of the criminal proceedings, the non petitioner has chosen not to start simultaneous proceedings under the disciplinary jurisdiction. 9. The petitioner has neither mentioned in the writ petition nor Mr. Mridul is in a position to state since when the criminal case is pending. The inference is obvious that the allegations against the petitioner in respect of charges of corruption relating to the famine works. 9. The petitioner has neither mentioned in the writ petition nor Mr. Mridul is in a position to state since when the criminal case is pending. The inference is obvious that the allegations against the petitioner in respect of charges of corruption relating to the famine works. a mention of which has been made in the various representations., Annexure 2 etc. are both in the criminal case as well as contemplated department enquiry. That being so, it was optional for the department concerned to wait till the result of the criminal proceedings so far as the disciplinary proceedings are concerned. 10. The contention of Mr. Mridul that the petitioner cannot be suspended by the Superintending Engineer, who has sent a telephonic message to the Executive Engineer, cannot be entertained for two-fold reasons: (1) Firstly because the objection that he was suspended by the authority who was not competent as alleged by Mr. Mridul in January 1980 when the order was passed to pass this order is too belated. Secondly, so far as this Court is concerned only a mention has been made in the writ petition but the order of appointment of the petitioner has not been filed, showing who was the appointing authority of the petitioner. 11. The third contention of Mr. Mridul is that other persons similarly situated, were reinstated and, therefore, this is a case of hostile discrimination. It is difficult for this Court to ascertain and adjudicate at this stage, the precise charge against each one of them and in the matters like this, it would not be fair proposition to accept that in the matters of suspension, Article 14 should be invoked for reinstating employees on the ground that some of them have been reinstated. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be generalised that they are similarly situated. 12. In the writ petition. it has been mentioned that the representation of the petitioner was recommended by politicians for his reinstatement. It would be sufficient to mention that these considerations, cannot have any significant role in so far as the legal rights before this Court are concerned. An employee who is charged with an offence of corruption and who has been arrested for that charge, hardly deserves any reinstatement even on political level as has been alleged in this case. 13. It would be sufficient to mention that these considerations, cannot have any significant role in so far as the legal rights before this Court are concerned. An employee who is charged with an offence of corruption and who has been arrested for that charge, hardly deserves any reinstatement even on political level as has been alleged in this case. 13. All that can be said is that it is unfortunate and unfair for politicians to intermeddle in such matters and it sounds odd that alleged corrupt officers are supported by Members of Legislative Assembly. who normally are expected to help the administration in rooting out and eradicating corruption. The growth of this unwholy practice, to produce recommendatory letters of Members of Legislative Assembly. as done in this case is a very poor homage to the Constitution which dreams of a Socialist State. 14. I am, therefore, of the opinion that in view of the pendency of the criminal case of corruption and the arrest of the accused in that alone, no interference can be made against the order of suspension at this stage. The writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. *******