P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge wherein the learned Judge rejected the Special Civil Application No. 7533 of 1988. In that petition the appellant herein wanted to quash the order of suspension passed against him. The appellant while working as Police Sub-Inspector at Astodia Police Station is alleged to have accepted a sum of Rs 1300 as bribe and also got his motor cycle filled up with petrol worth about Rs. 20. 00. It is also alleged that he delayed filing of the complaint given by one Chimanlal Maganlal. The complaint originally given by Chimanlal Maganlal was regarding a theft of certain silver materials There is a clear allegation in the chargesheet that the appellant has not only accepted the bride of Rs. 1300. 00 but has also got his motor cycle filled with the petrol costing Rs. 20. 00 stating that he will investigate the matter. It is also clear that the registration of the complaint was delayed. The complaint was made by Chimanlal Maganlal as early as on 25-5-1984 and the registration of the said complaint was done after the delay of four days i. e. on 29-5-1984. If the complaint is proved there is definitely moral turpitude involved in the same. The appellant being a P. S. I. cannot afford to continue in service if such offence has been committed by him. The chargesheet in this case was filed only on 18-10-1988 and subsequently on 27-10-1988 the suspension order has been passed. ( 2 ) THE learned single Judge after observing that the appellant if continued in services will definitely have an opportunity to repeat the same type of misconduct upheld the order of suspension. It is against the said order of the learned single Judge rejecting the petition that the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed. ( 3 ) MR. J. R Nanavati learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is a delay of nearly four years in suspending the appellant after the alleged commission of the offence; that the Police constable who has been chargesheet along with him for the very same offence has not been suspended; that the appellant has already been transferred to Junagadh and as such there is no question of any suspension at this late stage. Learned Counsel also cited the judgment of the learned single Judge and a Bench decision to support his case. ( 4 ) AS far as the averment that another Police Constable to whom the very same chargesheet has been given has not been suspended and that the present appellant also should not be suspended has no substance. The averment in the chargesheet as regards the appellant is concerned is grave enough to take action by the authorities concerned. Simply because some other person who has committed the very same offence is not suspended cannot give right to the appellant to contend that he must also be treated in the same fashion. ( 5 ) AS regards the delay in suspending the appellant learned Counsel cited the decision in special Civil Application No. 1568 of 1986 dated 25 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court. In this case the petitioner who was found drunk two years prior to his suspension was suspended after two years. The Bench of our High Court after observing that the nature of the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is also not such as to give rise to the inference that he would tamper with evidence held that the circumstances does not warrant on the facts of the said case to suspend him. In that case one unarmed Police Constable was chargesheeted for being found under the influence of alcohol on 30-4-1584 near his room No. 28 in Block 4 of Madhupura Police Lines while he was attached to Shahibaug Police Station. Only on 4-3-1956 the constable in that case came to be suspended. Considering the nature of the offence and also the circumstances that attached to that cases the Bench thought that the suspension order cannot be continued. There is absolutely no general proposition in that decision that when there is a delay in passing the order of suspension such an order cannot stand. As far as the present case is concerned we are able to see the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed by the appellate herein. If proved it will definitely involve moral turpitude and Each a person cannot be allowed to be in service for a moment. After investigations the chargesheet came to be filed after four years. As far as the present case is concerned we are able to see the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed by the appellate herein. If proved it will definitely involve moral turpitude and Each a person cannot be allowed to be in service for a moment. After investigations the chargesheet came to be filed after four years. There is no gainsaying in mentioning that all these four years the appellant has not committed any offence. The suspension order clearly states that the appellant has shown behaviour of corrupt practice not befitting to a Police Officer. Drawing an inference from the same the learned Judge has also observed that if the appellant is continued in service he will have definitely an opportunity to repeat the same type of misconduct. ( 6 ) THE argument that he has been transferred to Junagadh also cannot be appreciated for the purpose of striking down the suspension order. When a chargesheet has been filed prima facie alleging that corrupt practices have been committed by the appellant herein the mere transfer cannot give him the right to continue in service Wherever the appellant is posted if the authorities is of the opinion that there will be a tendency on his part to be corrupt there is no difficulty in upholding the order of suspension; even though he has been transferred. No doubt; such satisfaction has to be based upon relevant materials which will not shock the conscience of the Court to come to the conclusion otherwise. In this case there is a definite allegation regarding the corrupt practices perpetrated by the appellant herein. ( 7 ) IN those circumstances we do not find any infirmity in the order of suspension passed by the authorities concerned in the interest of administration. The learned single Judge has correctly apprised of these aspects of the case and we do not find any ground made out to interfere with the said order. ( 8 ) FOR all these reasons this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. ( 9 ) IN all fitness of things we feel on the facts and circumstances of the case that the enquiry has to be completed as expeditiously as possible taking into consideration that fact that the offence alleged is of the year 1984. Appeal dismissed .