JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Angad Singh Yadav, who was posted as Station Officer, G.R.P. Mathura, challenging the suspension order dated 17th October, 1985. A first information report was lodged by one Munendra Nath Chaturvedi Advocate, the brother of Pankaj Chaturvedi, the victim. It was alleged in the First Information Report that Rs. 8400/- had been snatched by the police personnel from Pankaj Chaturvedi on the 1st June, 1985 by beating him. On this complaint, enquiry was first entrusted to K.N. Gautam, who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Railways), Agra. He submitted interim report that it was not possible to verify the correctness of the allegations made in the F.I.R. dated 1st June, 1985. During the pendency of the enquiry by K.N. Gautam, Munish Chandra made another complaint to the Director General of Police who ordered. Inspector General of Police (Anti Corruption) to make independent enquiry into the allegations made by Pankaj Chaturvedi. In this representation to the Director General of Police, allegations were made against K.N. Gautam Deputy Superintendent of Police. On the report of Deputy Inspector General of Police (Anti Corruption) the suspension order was passed by the Superintendent of Police who was a competent Authority. 2. Challenging the suspension order, the petitioner's counsel mainly raised two points, One was that the suspension was in contravention of para 495 of Police Regulations and, as such, the order was liable to be quashed. The second argument was that it was mala fide. 3. We will take up the second ground relating to mala fide first. 4. The petitioner's case was that Munendra Nath Chaturvedi, the complainant, was since related to Sri J.N. Chaturvedi, who was the Director General of Police at that time, that the case was entrusted for enquiry to Deputy Inspector General of Police (Anti Corruption) and it was on account of his interest in the matter that the suspension order was passed. 5. The allegation made in the Writ petition that the report of K.N. Gautam submitted in favour of the petitioner was not accepted on account of relationship of Munendra Nath Chaturvedi with Sri J.N. Chaturvedi, has been denied in the counter affidavit. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that reports were made against K.N. Gautam, Deputy Superintendent of Police. The allegation made in the Writ petition that the report of K.N. Gautam submitted in favour of the petitioner was not accepted on account of relationship of Munendra Nath Chaturvedi with Sri J.N. Chaturvedi, has been denied in the counter affidavit. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that reports were made against K.N. Gautam, Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was on this report that the enquiry was entrusted to Deputy Inspector General of Police (Anti Corruption), who did not only find that the allegation against the petitioner had been made out and also that the action was required to be taken against K.N. Gautam in respect of his report which favoured the petitioner. 6. On being asked, the learned counsel for the petitioner expressed his inability to show from any of the affidavits or other documents that Sri J.N. Chaturvedi was related either to Pankaj Chaturvedi or Munendra Nath Chaturvedi Only because the Director General of Police was also Chaturvedi, as was Munendra Nath Chaturvedi, the petitioner took a plea of mala fide. While it is bad to favour a party on the ground of caste, it is worst that such a frivolous allegation of castism should be believed and the decision taken by an authority impartially be branded as mala fide. So long as caste system remains in this country, one has to belong to one caste or the other, but that is no ground for holding that the decision by an authority belonging to the caste to which the person effected is based on consideration of casteis. Such a baseless allegation has done great damage to the Nation and Political institutions of our country. 7. The burden to establish mala fide is a heavy burden to discharge. Vague and casual allegations that certain act was done with an ulterior motive cannot be accepted without adequate proof. Frivolous and fantastic allegations of castism and favouritism in our country are made against the person in authority which does not only purport to malign but which were only the object of maligning them. More than often such allegations on investigation have been found to be baseless. In the instant case as well, there was no basis to make allegations of favourism against Sri J.N. Chaturvedi, Director General of Police. 8. More than often such allegations on investigation have been found to be baseless. In the instant case as well, there was no basis to make allegations of favourism against Sri J.N. Chaturvedi, Director General of Police. 8. The petitioner's case was that since the report of K.N. Gautam was in favour of the petitioner, the matter should not have been directed for further enquiry. We do not find any merit in this submission. If the authorities were satisfied that a further enquiry was required, it could be ordered. The enquiry in the instant case was entrusted to Deputy Inspector General of Police (Anti Corruption). The Deputy Inspector General of Police made the enquiry and found prima facie case having been established against the petitioner. He did not have any motive to implicate the petitioner. He had found that action was required to be taken against K.N. Gautam, Deputy Superintendent of Police; We are satisfied that the grounds relating to mala fide have not been established and the suspension order, therefore could not be quashed on that ground. 9. The next argument of the petitioner's counsel was that since no judicial enquiry had commenced, the suspension order dated 17th October, 1985 is invalid. For this proposition, reliance had been placed on a judgment of a Division Bench in the Writ Petition No. 110 of 1985 Nural Hasan v. Senior Superintendent of Police Lucknow. We do not consider it necessary to go into this question in as much as the affidavit now filed on behalf of the respondents is that after investigation and collection of evidence, a case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 218/220/332/342/34 I.P.C. had been made out. 10. On the direction of the Director General of Police, fresh enquiry was conducted by Sri V.K. Singh, Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption, C.I.D. He submitted his report to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Anti Corruption). In the report, the Superintendent of Police found that the serious charges were established against the petitioner Angad Singh. On being satisfied, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Anti Corruption) approved it and sent the same to the Deputy Inspector General of Police. It was subsequently that on 17th August, 1985, the petitioner was suspended. In the report, the Superintendent of Police found that the serious charges were established against the petitioner Angad Singh. On being satisfied, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Anti Corruption) approved it and sent the same to the Deputy Inspector General of Police. It was subsequently that on 17th August, 1985, the petitioner was suspended. The case was, thereafter, entrusted to Sri Jitendra Pal Singh for investigating the case crime No. 114/85, under Section 392/342/323/218/161 I.P.C. The Section 6(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner, Angad Singh Yadav During investigation, a number of witnesses were argued. After completion of the investigation, the report, was sent to the Deputy Inspector General (Railways) to accord sanction under Para 486(4) of the Police Regulations. The sanction was, accordingly, accorded by the Deputy Inspector General (Railways). Along with the affidavit filed on 4th March 1986, the Investigating Officer has also filed the copy of the charge sheet in this Court, which was going to be lodged against the petitioner. 11. After considering all these facts, we are of opinion that even if interpretation of the word "Judicial" used in para 496 was accepted, the Judicial Enquiry in this case would commence with the filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner. That being so, the order suspending the petitioner is now cured of technical defects pointed out by the petitioner's counsel. It is a valid order and, as such, it will not be appropriate for us to quash it. The writ petition is rejected summarily under Chapter 22 of Rule 2 of the Rules of the Court.