ORDER In this Rule, the petitioner prayed for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel and/or revoke the order of suspension dated 29th February, 1980 issued by the Government of West Bengel. Department of Health and Family Welfare alledgly on the ground that disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was contemplated and that by the said order the petitioner was allowed to draw subsistence grant at the rate of one fourth of his pay. The petitioner, who is an M.B.B..S., joined the West Bengal Health Service on November 1, 1959 after being selected through the Public Service Commission, West Bengal and that thereafter, the petitioner was posted to different places in the State of West Bengal as Medical Officer and that when the petitioner was holding the post of Chief Medical Officer of Health, Midnapore, the petitioner all on a sudden was transferred to Calcutta by the order dated 3rd January, 1978 passed by the Director of Hea1th Service and that against the said order of transfer, the petitioner moved this Court and obtained a Rule in the Matter No 228 of 1978 and also obtained an order of injunction which is still pending. It is the case of the petitioner that for moving this Court against the order of transfer and obtaining the interim order of injunction, the respondents No.1 and 2, as a measure of victimisation. withheld the promotion of the petitioner higher intermediary selection grade and a number of officers who were juniors to the petitioner, were given promotion to the higher intermediary selection grades by two different batches and that against the said withholding of promotion to the higher selection grade and suppression by his juniors the petitioner moved this Court and obtained a Rule being Civil Rule No.11064 (W) of 1979. The said Civil Rule has been made absolute by this Court by an order passed today whereby considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents were directed to give to the petitioner the higher selection grade post which fell due to the petitioner long back including all consequential benefits and which was deliberately withheld as a measure of victimization with effect from a date prior to the date of grant of promotion to the juniors to the petitioner. It is not necessary for the purpose of this Civil Rule to state the facts in details which were the subject matter of the earlier Civil Rule. 2. In this case while the petitioner was staying at Midnapore on the Strength of the inteim order passed in the Matter No. 228 of 1978 and after the petitioner was superseded which was also the subject master of earlier Civil Rule, the petitioner was suspended from the service of Chief Medical Officer of Health, Midnapore on the ground that disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against him. It is necessary to set out some of the facts which have been stated in the writ petition. The petitioner made a writ petition to this Court against order of promotion to juniors to him and the rule obtained by him was still pending. The eligibility list for appointment of the higher intermediary selection grade/pacial selection grade of the same service in their existing grade was prepared and maintained by the respondent No.2 for the year 1975 to 1978 which would show that the petitioner was senior to those medical officers who had been promoted to higher intermediacy selection grade. On 29th February, 1980 the petitioner worked and performed his duties at Midnapore as Chief Medical Officer upto 3:15 p.m. on that date and thereafter left for Ghatal Sub-Division Hospital for certain official duties. But while at Ghatal, the petitioner was informed by a message from the office of the Chief Medical of Health. Midnapore that the respondent No.3 the Joint Director of Health Service (Administration) and the respondent. No. 4, Assistant Director of Health Service, Family Welfare had come to the office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health and have asked the staff present there to inform the petitioner of their arrival and asked the petitioner to immediately come down to the office at Midnapore canceling all programme. Thereupon the petitioner immediately went to the office of the Sub-Divisional medical Officer and found several employees of the Hospital were present there. Thereupon the petitioner immediately went to the office of the Sub-Divisional medical Officer and found several employees of the Hospital were present there. At about 4.45 p.m. on 29th February, 1980, the petitioner got a telephone call in the office from the Sub-Divisional Officer that the Sub-Divisional Officer was directed over the phone by the respondent No.3 the Joint Director of Health Service (Administration) to ask the petitioner to return to Midnapore immediately canceling all programmes there and that the petitioner was further informed that the petitioner immediately contacted the A.D.M. (General) over the phone and came to learn that the Respondent No.2 Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare had informed the A.D.M. that administrative agency requires the presence of the petitioner at Midnapore, immediately. In spite of the request, the said A.D.M. did not disclose anything apart from the fact that the petitioner would understand everything on reaching Midnapore as the matter was very simple. At that time, the Hospital staff were crowding the room and they looked to each other in such a way which gave the petitioner an impression that they knew everything and smilling as the petitioner was in trouble. Thereafter, the petitioner left Ghatal and reached his residence at Midnapore at about 8-30 p.m. where the petitioner did not find anybody excepting the maid servant. When the petitioner entered his residence at Midnapore his sons started crying and told him that sometime back 8 or 10 officers came to the house and had hot exchange of words with the petitioner’s wife and they had pasted something like a latter on the outer wall of the residence of the petitioner and after they had left, the petitioner’s wife started weeping and leaving the children to the care of the maid servant, went to another house to contact the petitioner over phone at Ghatal. At abourt 8-45. p.m., the petitioner’s wife came back to his residence and the petitioner came to know from her that about 5 o’clock in the afternoon several persons including the respondent No.5, Dr. Niranjan Mohuri, District Health Officer, Midnapore, Respondent No.6, Dr. Sanat Kumar Sengapta, Assistant Chief Medical Officer, Midnapore and the respondent No.8, Dr. Pulak Sarkar, Regional Health Transport Officer, Midnapore came to the house of the petitioner and wanted to make over to the wife of the petitioner a sealed envelope. Niranjan Mohuri, District Health Officer, Midnapore, Respondent No.6, Dr. Sanat Kumar Sengapta, Assistant Chief Medical Officer, Midnapore and the respondent No.8, Dr. Pulak Sarkar, Regional Health Transport Officer, Midnapore came to the house of the petitioner and wanted to make over to the wife of the petitioner a sealed envelope. On e of these persons at the direction of the respondent No.6, Dr. Sanat Kumar Sengupta asked the petitioner’s wife to put her signature on the acknowledgment of the sealed envelope and when she told him that the petitioner was out of the town on official duty and was due to return shortly, they could wait in the office room and to make over the said respondent No. 6 told the petitioner’s wife in a rough and rude tone and in a rude manner that the said respondents Nos. 3 and 4, namely the Joint Director of Health Service (Administration) and Assistant Director of Health Service (Family Welfare) had come from Calcutta specially for the purpose of making over the said envelope to the petitioner and that they would wait outside and if the petitioner’s wife did not take the letter and put her signature, then the respondent No. 8, namely Dr. Pulak Sarkar, the Regional Health Transport Officer would force her to put her signature and to take delivery of the said envelope. In spite of the said bad behaviour of the said respondents, the petitioner's wife opened the office room and asked them to sit there to which the respondent No. 5 sarcastically said that they had not come to sit and they would make her and her husband to understand the fun for moving the case against the government in the High Court The petitioner's wife then started weeping. When the respondent No. 8, Dr. Pulak Sarkar told the petitioner's wife that her husband lost in the High Court case and they are to face the consequence for not only losing the case but also for filing the Case against the government. Thereafter, the said persons left the room and pasted the order of suspension on the outer wall and used filthy language and caned names which were very obscene and vulgar. They also threatened her that they would come back again with police and throw her out of quarters. The petitioner copied out the said notice which was pasted on the outer wal1. They also threatened her that they would come back again with police and throw her out of quarters. The petitioner copied out the said notice which was pasted on the outer wal1. The petitioner had neither handed over the charge to anybody, nor anybody came to take over charge from the petitioner The impugned order was passed on 29th February, 1980 which was a Friday. It was issued on the same day and was sought to be served on the same day through such high officials like respondents No.3 and 4. The respondents in this case acted in a hot haste and had maneuvered the entire matter in such a manner so that the petitioner could not move the court as the next two days were Saturday and Sunday on which days was High Court remains closed. On 1st March, 1980, the petitioner and his wife left for Calcutta for contacting the lawyer, leaving the two children to the care of the orderly On 2nd March, 1980. the petitioner's wife left Calcutta for Midnapore at 3:15 p.m and at about 10-15 p.m. the petitioner got a telephone call from his wife form Midnapore that the orderly in whose care and custody, the said two children of the petitioner was left, had been withdrawn by the respondents and the respondent No 3 to 8 had also disconnected telephone installed at the petitioner's residence by tearing the telephone themselves. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner moved a writ application before this court (II) 3rd March. 1980 and when upon His Lordship, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice C K. Banerjee of this Court was pleased to issue a rule and interim order of injunction. 3. The petitioner challenged the validity and/or legality of the said order of suspension on the ground that the said order of suspension was on the face of it mala fide and that the same was passed as a measure of retaliation and for a collateral purpose with oblique motive and oblique object. It was further alleged that the said order was passed arbitrarily and mala fide and that the said order was not passed in the interest of public service or on any administrative reasons, as the same haft been passed only to punish and/or cause harm to the petitioner. It was further alleged that the said order was passed arbitrarily and mala fide and that the said order was not passed in the interest of public service or on any administrative reasons, as the same haft been passed only to punish and/or cause harm to the petitioner. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it was further alleged that there was no material on record which warrants the passing of the order of suspension to contemplation of a departmental enquiry It was further alleged that the object of the suspension is to facilitate easy collection of evidence in the investigation or enquiry into the charges against the delinquent officer and that it would be prejudicial to the public interest that when the authorities are satisfied that the witnesses may hesitate to depose against the delinquent officer so long as he continues to he in the office or that the delinquent officer should be prevented from tampering with the witnesses. The gravity of the charges is also a relevant factor for which the order of suspension could be passed when the charge against the officer are of moral turpitude, bribery, defalcation of public money, corruption or any criminal charges in that case. 4. The respondents filed affidavit-in opposition which was affirmed by Dr. Asit Kumar Dey, the Assistant Director of Health Service In paragraph 8 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was stated that “ I further say that unless the petitioner was placed under suspension from the said post the enquiry would have been frustrated because the petitioner would have been in a position to impede the investigation In any event, the appointing authority has under the rule absolute discretion to suspend where a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated" In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was admitted that the said respondents went to Midnapore from Calcutta on 29th February, 1980 only to serve the said order of suspension on the petitioner and the reasons for going of such official was "to solve on the spot if any problem asries" It is pertinent to mention here that none of the respondents against whom serious allegations were made by the petitioner in the writ petition, filed any affidavit-in opposition extroverting any of the allegations made against them. In the said affidavit-in opposition in paragraph 8, it was stated that "There are various serious charges of corruption obedience, insubordination for which the department contemplates to draw department al proceeding.... ...... . .... against the petitioner. 5. Mr. Siblal Bose, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended in the first place that it is too late in the date to contend that the respondents held unfettered and/or absolute discretion in the matter of passing an order of suspension inasmuch as it is now firmly established principle that every activity of the Government must have a public element in it and it must therefore be informed with reasons and guided by public interest and that its validity is liab1e to be tested on the touchstone if reasonableness and public interest and if it fails to satisfy the either test, it would be unconstitutional and invalid, It was further submitted that unlike private individual, the state cannot not as it pleases in its absolute and unfettered discretion and in support of his contention Mr. Bose relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Kasturlal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu & Kashmir reported in AIR 1980 SC 1992 . 6. It was further submitted that whenever an order of suspension is challenged on the ground that it was passed disregarding the relevant consideration or taken into account extraneous consideration it is open to the court to consider whether the considerations are relevant and/or germane to the issue. The relevant file was produced before this Court. In the filed have perused several notes which culminated in the older of suspension and it is necessary to highlight such facts and circumstances leading to the order of suspension as appearing from the file From the fife it appears that one Sm Sudharani Chakraborty, G.D.A made a prayer for giving light duty by the Medical Officer-in-Charge, Uttarpara Mechagram P.H.C. in 23.11.79 which was forwarded by Shri Biswanath Mukherjee, M.L.A. directly and under order of the Minister-in-Charge of Health she was permitted to be given light duty. It further appears that the letter directing the Medical Officer in Charge, Uttarpara Mechagram P.H.C. for giving such light duty was issued under the signature of Director of Health Service West Bengal. It further appears that the letter directing the Medical Officer in Charge, Uttarpara Mechagram P.H.C. for giving such light duty was issued under the signature of Director of Health Service West Bengal. Immediately after that the Medical Officer-in-Charge of the said P.H.C. cancelled his order dated 23.11.79 and directed the G.D.A. on 27.11.79 to do all kinds of duty in P.H.C. excepting kitchen duty. Against the said order of the Medical-in-charge, a prayer was submitted to the Director of Health Service. The Medical Officer-in-Charge, Uttarpara Mechagram P.H.C. stated that he had issued the said order on the basis of the instruction given by the petitioner and that under such circumstances, the Director of Health Services by the note dated 31.12.79 held that “It is quite clear from the order that it is an act of clear violation of the orders of the competent authority by the local M.O.-in-charge and the C.M.O.H., Midnapore. If the C.M.O.H., Midnapore considered it necessary to change the order, he should have obtained prior permission from the Directorate as he was going to act against the specific order issued from this Directorate. But the C.M.O.H., Midnapore did not do that. In many other cases also C.M.O.H., Midnapore behaved in the same way.” Thereafter, the Director of Health Service wanted an explanation form the petitioner regarding the affairs of said Sm. Sudharani Chakraborty. It appears that the petitioner by the memo dated 29.1.80 informed the Director of Health Service that Sm. Sudharani Chakraborty, G.D.A. was standing in the way of smooth running of the said Primary Health Centre and was not working normally and for doing so, the was taking the plea of her illness and that under such circumstances she was directed to appear before a Medical Board and the Medical Board after examining her gave the decision that she should be exempted from kitchen duty for 6 months. It was further stated that on receipt of the report from the Medical Board, the petitioner forwarded the said report to the Medical Officer of the said Health Centre directing him to utilise the services of the said Sm. Sudharani Chakraborty as per the advice of the Medical Board It was clearly stated by the petitioner that he had never violated the orders of the Director of Health Service nor had any intention to do so in the future. Sudharani Chakraborty as per the advice of the Medical Board It was clearly stated by the petitioner that he had never violated the orders of the Director of Health Service nor had any intention to do so in the future. The petitioner further stated that the petitioner never directed the Medical Officer concerned to use the services of the said Sm Sudharani Chakraborty in the usual way which was continuing prior to the medical report. It was further stated by the petitioner that the petitioner’s letter to the said Medical Officer was simply to accommodate the said Sm. Sudharani Charaborty as per advice of the Medical Board. But the Medical Officer, in canceling the order given by the Director of Health Service, has acted in a wrong way without intimation to the petitioner. Surprisingly enough the Secretary of the Health Department and the Hon’ble Minister of Health found that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was totally unacceptable and it was stated that “In view of the Directorate order, he had no reason whatsoever or referring to the report of the Medical Board and his letter to M.O.-in-charge of the P.H.C. dated 24.11.79 was totally unwarranted” and that for this the Health Secretary as well as the Minister-in-Charge of the Health directed to start a departmental proceeding against the petitioner and suspension of the petitioner. The file was signed by the Minister-in-Charge on 28.2.80. The draft suspension order was prepared on 29.2.80 and the order of suspension was issued on 29.2.80. 7. From the file produced before this Court, it transpires that the only reason for which the departmental proceeding was suggested and the petitioner was placed under suspension was only with regard to the allotment of duty to Sm. Sudharani Chakraborty, General Duty Attendant of the said Primary Health Centre and that the allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner’s direction to the Medical Officer-in-charge of the said Primary Health Centre for directing the said Sm. Chakraborty to appear before the Medical Board and to allot duty pursuant to the recommendation made by the Medical Board in this behalf. There was no other allegation against the petitioner before the authorities concerned decided to initiate departmental proceeding and to place the petitioner under suspension. Chakraborty to appear before the Medical Board and to allot duty pursuant to the recommendation made by the Medical Board in this behalf. There was no other allegation against the petitioner before the authorities concerned decided to initiate departmental proceeding and to place the petitioner under suspension. From the facts appearing from the note-sheets of the file concerned which culminated in the order of suspension, there was no allegation of corruption, disobedience and/or insubordination except the single instance as stated hereinbefore. 8. From the file it also appears that the Medical Officer in Charge of the said Primary Health Centre by the Memo dated 26.11.79 requested the petitioner who was the Chief Medical Officer of Health, Midnapore to take disciplinary action against the said Sm. Sudharani Chakrabnorty or in the alternative to transfer the said Sm. Sudharani Chakraborty, G.D.A. from that Primary Health Centre on the ground that since her appointment in the year 1975. she was not transferred to any other place and that though she had worked for 5 years and during the said 5 years "She had done hardly one month's duty in indoor very unwillingly............ The remaining period she had done the duty in dispensary such as pushing of injection and serving of drugs which are not scheduled to G.D.A. She is even unfit for doing duty in O.P.D. and dispensary because she does not like to clean dispensary table to carry water and to dress the minor wounds of the O.P.D. patients Her indoor duty is very unsatisfactory to the beded patients and also to the sisters on duty. Principally she hates the scheduled duty of a G.D.A. and she has no aptitude to her profession as she has been avoiding scheduled jobs of G.D.A. since inception of her service I do not like to consider that she is ill since then because she had to appear for medicinal fitness at the time of her appointment. Moreover, she is very much uncooperative to other G.D.A. and also to the local administration. All other G.D.A. ready to render service even 16 hourly duty without any weekly day off in need, but she is not ready to do beyond 4 hours duty in dispensary. She must enjoy weekly day off without any sympathy to other colleagues. Moreover, she is very much uncooperative to other G.D.A. and also to the local administration. All other G.D.A. ready to render service even 16 hourly duty without any weekly day off in need, but she is not ready to do beyond 4 hours duty in dispensary. She must enjoy weekly day off without any sympathy to other colleagues. Such ill treatment by her to other G.D.A. for a long time has caused grievance of them towards local administration failing to force her to do duty. Now she is the cause of loss of integration among the entire staff. Form recent order of the D.H.S.,W.B., it is clear to me that she has directly approached to D.H.S. to avoid local and district authorities and this goes against the service conduct. She has concealed the facts before the D.H.S. Lastly, I like to point cut the fact that there are several evidence with me that a very influential political head of this Block has been working behind the facts mentioned above and causing under interference and annoyance here in the P.H.C. for a long time …….. For the sake of good and impartial administration and to avoid local political hand working for a long time in favour of this lady, she should be transferred immediately to anywhere also beyond this Block at least Disciplinary action may be taken for her misconduct” On the basis of this said Sm. Chakraborty to appear before the Medical Officer-in-Charge to direct the said Sm. Chakraborty to appear before the Medical Board and that after The Medical Board opened that she should not be given the kitchen duty, the duty was allotted to the said Sm. Chakraborty on the basis of the recommendation made by the Medical Board. On the basis of the said memo the petitioner neither initiated any departmental proceeding nor transferred the said Sm. Chakraborty as suggested by the Medical Officer, The said memo of the Medical Officer-in-Charge concerned of the Primary Health Centre addressed to the petitioner was also forwarded by the petitioner to the Director of Health Service. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not appear that there was any laches and/or negligence and/or any act of insubordination, on the contrary it appears that there were several allegations made by the Medical Officer-in-Charge against the said Sm. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not appear that there was any laches and/or negligence and/or any act of insubordination, on the contrary it appears that there were several allegations made by the Medical Officer-in-Charge against the said Sm. Chakraborty as stated hereinbefore and that after all the facts were brought to the notice of the Director of Health Service, the Director of Health Service in this matter proceeded against the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the petitioner had violated the order of the Director of Health Service by directing the sold Sm. Chakraborty to appear before the Medical Board and for that purpose the disciplinary proceeding was sought to be initiated and the petitioner was placed under suspension in the circumstances stated hereinbefore, This does not appear to be bona fide at all and that it cannot be said that the said authorities acted in good faith at all. From the facts disclosed it is not understood how the petitioner could be charged for any act of misconduct of indisciplined act and/or insubordination. On the contrary from the file it is crystal clear that for some re son which cannot be said to be in the interest of administration and/or exigency of public service, the respondents including the Director of Health Service and Minister concerned wanted to favour the said Sm. On the contrary from the file it is crystal clear that for some re son which cannot be said to be in the interest of administration and/or exigency of public service, the respondents including the Director of Health Service and Minister concerned wanted to favour the said Sm. Chakraborty and that though allegation as made by the Medical Officer-in Charge of the Primary Health Centre wag brought to the notice of the said respondents, but they shut their eyes on the aspect of the matter and on the contrary became extremely annoyed and went out of the way in deciding to initiate disciplinary proceeding and to place the petitioner under suspension In view of the two decisions of the Supreme Court of India', one in the case of Union of India v J Ahmed reported in AIR 1979 SC 1022 and the other A.L. Kalra v The Project & Equipment Corporation of India Limited reported it AIR 1984 SC 1361 it is no longer open to charge anybody for misconduct for any ground whatsoever unless the acts of misconduct are defined with precision in the conduct rules and that mere acts of negligence errors of judgment or innocent mistakes do not constitute misconduct unless the said misconduct arises from ill motive Mere negligence in performance of duty without an}thing more does not and cannot mean misconduct. In view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, there is no room for any doubt that any omission or commission on the part of the employee concerned cannot be considered as misconduct unless the test laid down in the said two decisions of the Supreme Court arc fulfilled. In the instant case, uncontroverhd fact on the face of it does not constitute any misconduct which may warrant initiation of departmental proceeding and/or placing the petitioner under suspension in contemplation of any enquiry. 9 It is now firmly established principle that the order of suspension, cannot be passed in its absolute and unfettered discretion on the part of the respondents concerned In the instant case, the facts and circumstances leading to the order of suspension clearly indicate that the authorities concerned proceeded against the petitioner not bona fide and/or honestly, on the contrary from the very beginning, the authorities concerned proceeded in the matter with a closed and biased mind against the petitioner. 10. 10. In law, the expression 'mala tide' has its own meaning 'Mala fide' does not necessarily involve malicious intention. It is enough if the aggrieved party establishes that the authority making the impugned order did not apply its mind to all the matter in question or anything done without due care and attention In Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. 1 (Fourth Edition) at page 67, para 60, it is stated that "The exercise of a statutory power is invalid unless the repository of the power has acted in honestly and in good faith The deliberate promotion of a purpose. be it public or private, alien to that for which the power was conferred is to be regarded as an act of bad faith............where a prima facie case of misuse of power has been made, it is open to a Court to draw the inference that unauthorised purposes have been pursued if complete authority fails to adduce any grounds supporting the va1idity of its conduct" 11. It was observed in Wade's 'Administrative Law', 5th Edition at page 347 that "The first requirement is the recognition that all power has legal limits. The next requirement, no less vital, is that the courts should draw those limits in a way which strikes the most suitable balance between executive efficiency and legal protection of the citizen Parliament constantly confers upon public authorities powers which on their face might seem absolute and arbitrary But arbitrary power and unfettered discretion are what the courts refuse to countenance They have woven a network restrictive principles which require statutory powers to be responsible and in good faith, for proper purpose only and in accordance with the spirit as well as the letter of the empowering Act." At page 359 it was observed that "The discretion of a Statutory body is never unfettered It is discretion which is to be exercised according to law. That means at least this: the statutory body must be guided by relevant consideration and not by irrelevant. If its decision is influenced by extraneous consideration which it ought not to hive taken into account, then the decision cannot stand. No matter that the statutory body may have acted in good faith; nevertheless the decision will be set aside. That is established by Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture Fisheries & Food which is a landmark in modern administrative law. 12. No matter that the statutory body may have acted in good faith; nevertheless the decision will be set aside. That is established by Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture Fisheries & Food which is a landmark in modern administrative law. 12. Considering the fact s and circumstances of the case it is clearly evident that actions on the part of the respondents were not at all bona fide and/or taken in good faith. This is a case where the authorities concerned acted at their sweet will and not in the interest of public service or in the exigency of public service. The manner in which the Order was served also exhibited mala fides on the part of the respondent concerned Further, even assuming that the actions against the petitioner complained of constitute a serious misconduct, the suspension was wholly uncalled for inasmuch as the power of suspension could be exercised only in aid of the enquiry or to facilitate the enquiry. In the facts and circumstances of the case the order of suspension was passed illegally and mala fide. It may be mentioned that while issuing the rule interim order was passed by C. K Banerjee. J. and that the application for vacating the interim order was also rejected by the learned judge by delivering a long and detailed older dated 29th March, 1980 by which the application for vacating the interim order was rejected. The service of a public servant could not be made dependent upon the whims and caprice of the top government officials The petitioner, in my view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, had been made a victim in a most unwarranted manner In the result, the rule is made absolute The order of suspension is set aside, Let a writ in the nature of Certiorari do issue quashing the order of suspension dated 29th February, 1980. Let a writ in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents not to give any effect or further effect to the said order of suspension dated 29280, In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the Case, the respondent shall pay cost to the petitioner assessed at 60 G.M,s. Rule made absolute.