G. N. RAY, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against summary dismissal of the writ petition in C. O. No. 1447 (W) of 1987 made by the appellant, Dulal Krishna Kanjilal. ( 2 ) THE application for interim order appeared on 3rd July, 1987 and the direction for filing affidavits was given. Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Government Advocate has appeared before this court and has submitted that as the writ petition was not made available to the department, proper instructions for drafting the affidavit could not be obtained and as such, the affidavit-in- opposition could not be filed within the specified time. He has, however, produced before us a copy of the letter written by the Deputy Commissioner of India for Bangladesh on 22nd January, 1987 to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Calcutta Airport (Anti Hijacking and Security) containing the signatures' of two persons endorsing the statements made in the said letter of complaint and it appears from the said letter of complaint that the appellant, a Sub-Inspector of Police on duty in the Anti- Hijacking Section of the Calcutta Airport had obtained bribe from two persons travelling to Dacca by Air while the said Deputy High Commissioner of India for Bangladesh and other two witnesses endorsing the letter of complaint had been standing in the same queue for security checking. It has been stated by the Superintendent of Police that the departmental proceeding was going to be initiated shortly and in view of the serious nature of complaint made against him, it was decided to place him under suspension and not to allow him to perform the duties as Sub-Inspector of Police. In that view of the matter, it does not appear to us that without any just cause the order of suspension was made. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court made in the case of the Managing Director, U. P. Warehousing Corporation and Ors. v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, reported in : 1980-I LLJ 222 for the purpose of contending that a regular departmental enquiry takes place only after tne charge-sheet is drawn up and served upon the delinquent and the latter's explanation is obtained. v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, reported in : 1980-I LLJ 222 for the purpose of contending that a regular departmental enquiry takes place only after tne charge-sheet is drawn up and served upon the delinquent and the latter's explanation is obtained. Relying on the said decision of the Supreme Court, the learned counsel had contended that under Police Regulation, Bengal, it is only during the pendency of the enquiry the delinquent police employee can be placed under suspension and since the regular departmental proceeding had not been initiated, there could not have been any regular enquiry and as such, the order of suspension was illegal. ( 4 ) WE are, however, unable to accept the said contention because it appears to us that the Supreme Court has only indicated in the said decision that the regular departmental enquiry takes place only after the charge-sheet is drawn up and served. In the facts of that case it was decided by the Supreme Court that no regular enquiry came into operation before the charge-sheet was issued against a delinquent employee. It appears to us that the enquiry as contemplated in the Police Regulation since relied upon by the appellant should be understood in a broader sense including probing enquiry and it will not be proper to limit it on the initiation of a departmental proceeding on the issuance of a formal charge-sheet. It appears to us that in the instant case, on the face of the complaint made by the Deputy Commissioner of India for Bangladesh endorsed by two witnesses, a prima facie view of complicity of the delinquent officer was taken and a decision for starting regular disciplinary proceeding was also made and in that sense, the case of preliminary or probing enquiry was present. That apart, the writ court is a court of enquiry and interference by the writ court is not always of course or must even if there is some infraction of rules and procedures and the aforesaid principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court. In the facts, and circumstances of the case, we do not intend to interfere with the order of the learned trial Judge dismissing the writ petition in limine wherein the said order of suspension was challenged. In the facts, and circumstances of the case, we do not intend to interfere with the order of the learned trial Judge dismissing the writ petition in limine wherein the said order of suspension was challenged. It is, however, only desirable that delinquent police officer should not be kept under suspension for a further period and the departmental proceeding as proposed on the basis of the complaint should be initiated without any further delay. The appeal and the application are both disposed of accordingly treating the appeal as on day's list. There will be no order as to costs.