K. M. YUSUF, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petitioner moved this Court against the order of suspension dated 17th March, 1990 issued by the Inspector-General of police (HQ), West Bengal. The petitioner joined the West Bengal Police in 1961 as Sub-Inspector of Police and was posted at Jadavpur Police Station, then he was transferred to Behala Police Station and again to Jadavpur, police Station. He was the Officer-in-Charge of Dum Dum Airport immigration Check-Post and also Officer-in-Charge. of Traffic, Alipore, then he was transferred as Officer-in-Charge, Bizpur Police Station, and was again posted at the Intelligence Branch. In 1973 he was promoted to the post of Inspector and was posted as Circle inspector, Sadar, Midnapore, and then as Inspector, Railway Police, Kharagpur. Thereafter he became Senior Adjutant, Home Guard, Howrah, and then took over the charge of Howrah Police Station in 1992. For his good perform-cc in the service he was given Cash Reward of Rs. 100/-, Paper Reward 45 and good service remark 15. During the last 27 years of service no punishment was ever inflicted upon the petitioner nor any adverse remark was made against him in the Service Record. ( 2 ) ON 10th Much, 1983 the Superintendent of Police transferred the petitioner from Bantra Police Station to C. I. D. , West Bengal. This order was challenged by hi. in the High Court and Mr. Justice Mahitosh Majumdar granted an Interim Order for one week and thereafter the same was extended for six weeks and on the basis of the said writ petition i. e. C. O. No. 3082 (W) of 1988 the petitioner is still continuing as Inspector-in- Charge of Bantra Police Station. ( 3 ) THE petitioner's case is that on 15th March, 1990 one Sanjoy Patra was murdered at Ichapur Ghatak Para under Das Nagar Investigating Centre in Jagachha Police Station. Two cases were recorded one by Howrah Police Station and another by Jagachha Police Station. The petitioner states that Officer-in-Charge of Das Nagar, Inspector-in-Charge S. I. Tapan Chakraborty and second S. I. Jayanta Chakraborty hurriedly removed the dead body of Sanjoy Patra to Howrah General Hospital Morgue. Two cases were recorded one by Howrah Police Station and another by Jagachha Police Station. The petitioner states that Officer-in-Charge of Das Nagar, Inspector-in-Charge S. I. Tapan Chakraborty and second S. I. Jayanta Chakraborty hurriedly removed the dead body of Sanjoy Patra to Howrah General Hospital Morgue. On their way back from Howrah Hospital to Das Nagar the police officials could not be able to proceed towards Das Nagar Police Station due to heavy road block by the local people at Shanpur crossing and they took shelter in Bantra Police Station and this Police Station was attacked by a mob. As a result the petitioner sustained injury at about 9. 30 A. M. in the Police Station and fell unconscious and was treated inside the Police Station. The mob agitated by burning State Bus and making unruly behaviour near the Bantra Police Station and the police had to open fire to disperse the mob at about 11. 30 A. M. and as a result one Prantick Mukherjee succumed to his injury due to firing. This was happened in the presence of the Additional Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Town (South), and other high police officials but the petitioner could not come out of the Police Station because of the injury. Thereafter your petitioner was suddenly served with an order of suspension issued by the Inspector-General of Police, (HQ), West Bengal, on 17th March, 1990. ( 4 ) THE petitioner states that the suspension order was made on the alleged ground of pending further enquiry. He further states that as one of the seniormost Inspectors of the Howrah District it was his duty to save the lives of Police Personnel from the agitated mob and the petitioner took the risk of giving shelter to the Police Personnel in the Bantra Police Station and as a result he sustained injury. It is a fact that the senior high police officials were present at the time of police firing as the result of which Prantick Mukherjee died. Although the petitioner was not present personally because of his injury he has been placed under suspension but no one else who were actually present on the spot. He states that the order of suspension against him is discriminatory and motivated with the sole intention of saving the Superintendent of Police. Although the petitioner was not present personally because of his injury he has been placed under suspension but no one else who were actually present on the spot. He states that the order of suspension against him is discriminatory and motivated with the sole intention of saving the Superintendent of Police. The petitioner's further case is that according to Rule 880 of the Police Regulations of Bengal, 1943 the suspension of the petitioner is bad in law. The Rules does not provide that in every case of pending disciplinary proceeding, suspension was to follow automatically. He alleges that his suspension is virtually mechanical approach with non- application of mind. His categorical case is that from the suspension order it appears that there was widespread lawlessness in Bantra Police Station but there is no prima facie cause or reason for placing the petitioner under suspension. Hence the petition to quash the suspension order. ( 5 ) THE respondents by an Affidavit-in-Opposition stated that the petitioner completed five years of his stay at his posting in Bantra Police Station as Inspector-in-Charge. But on the basis of a writ petition being C. O. No. 3082 (W) of 1988 he was enjoying an order of Injunction against the order of transfer but on 23rd March, 1990 the said writ petition was dismissed. It is stated that preliminary enquiries held by very Senior Officers of the West Bengal Police revealed that wide-spread lawlessness took place including attack on the Bantra Police Station and Out-Post on 15th March, 1990 when one Sanjoy Patra was murdered under Jagachha Police Station. This resulted in arson and damage to Government and private properties including vehicles of the Additional Superintendent of Police (Town) Howrah, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Town/south), Howrah, and that of the Inspector-in-Charge, Malipanchghora Police Station, which was badly damaged and a good number of police personnel sustained injuries. From the report it appears that the petitioner did not become unconscious as a result of injury. The violent mob ransacked Bantra Police Station and police had to resort to fire to disperse the mob when one Prantick Mukherjee succumed to injuries. From the report it appears that the petitioner did not become unconscious as a result of injury. The violent mob ransacked Bantra Police Station and police had to resort to fire to disperse the mob when one Prantick Mukherjee succumed to injuries. It is further stated that as the Officer-in-Charge of Bantra Police Station for the last five year it was the preliminary duty of the petitioner to make proper assessment of the situation and to take adequate steps with the resources under his command before the situation went out of control. From the preliminary enquiries separately made by the Superintendent of ,police, Howrah, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Presidency Range, and the Inspector-General of Police (Head Quarters) the petitioner was guilty of gross dereliction of duties and utter incompetence in handling the situation involving grave disturbance of law and order on 15th March, 1990 at the Bantra Police Station area. Petitioner reported sick on the very day to avoid his responsibility in serious circumstances and this sickness caused severe administrative problems. ( 6 ) THE Affidavit further states that the order of suspension against the petitioner was passed by the Inspector-General of Police (Head Quarters) on 17th March, 1990 pending further enquiry into his conduct. After the suspension a thorough and detailed enquiry was to be undertaken that would reveal further evidence either confirming or disapproving prima facie evidence of the dereliction of duty or other lapses. It is denied that the impugned order of suspension is motivated or made with the intention to save the Superintendent of Police as alleged. It is further stated that there is no mandatory provision either in the Police Act, 1861 or in the Police Regulations of Bengal, 1943 preventing an order of suspension being passed unless a disciplinary proceeding has actually been initiated against the delinquent. ( 7 ) THE Affidavit-in-Reply by the petitioner points out that the verification portion of the Affidavit-in-Opposition is not in accordance with the Rules framed under Article 226 of the Constitution by this Hon'ble Court. It is admitted that the C. O. No. 3082 (W) of 1988 was ultimately dismissed on 23rd March, 1990 though the writ petition was affirmed on 22nd March, 1990. It is admitted that the C. O. No. 3082 (W) of 1988 was ultimately dismissed on 23rd March, 1990 though the writ petition was affirmed on 22nd March, 1990. It is stated that though reference has been made of violent mob attacked on Bantra Police Station and the Out-Post as a result of murder of Sanjoy Patra but shockingly no mention has been made as to the place of murder and where the police case was registered. The Affidavit-in-Reply states that the higher officials did not even care to meet the petitioner or enquire about his health and the nature of injury. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Town/south), Howrah, lodged a F. I. R. on 15th March, 1990 at 8. 20 hours which speaks for itself and where it is stated that the D. S. P. arranged for medical treatment of injured police personnel including Inspector-in-Charge of Bantra Police Station (i. e. petitioner while sending him to Sibpur Police Hospital), it is stated therein that the Sanjoy Patra was murdered at Ghatakpara under Das Nagar Investigating Centre in Jagachha Police Station at 4. 00 hours according to G. D. Entry No. 454 at 4. 35 hours as Jagachha Police Station, Case. It is stated that after release from Sibpur Police Hospital the petitioner was under the treatment of Dr. S. K. Chatterjee, a private practioner. It is also stated that the suspension was made with malafide motive to deprive the petitioner from his legitimate claim for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and he believes that his name has already been forwarded to the Public Service Commission, West Bengal, for consideration. But in view of the suspension order the Public Service Commission will pass over the case of the petitioner at the time of selection. This indicates that the suspension order was, in fact, a punishment. It is contended in the Affidavit-in-Reply that the names of the Senior Police Officers who conducted preliminary enquiry have not been disclosed nor any enquiry report was. placed. The executive enquiry was held at Circuit House, Howrah, on 10th and 11th April, 1990 at 11 A. M. and this petitioner was unnecessarily made to wait on both the days inspite of the fact that the Officers had the full knowledge that he was suffering hepatitis but was not asked to depose. placed. The executive enquiry was held at Circuit House, Howrah, on 10th and 11th April, 1990 at 11 A. M. and this petitioner was unnecessarily made to wait on both the days inspite of the fact that the Officers had the full knowledge that he was suffering hepatitis but was not asked to depose. In Reply he has referred to some police diaries which are necessary to be produced before the Court at the. time of the hearing. It is also alleged that the other Police Personnel involved in the incident were transferred whereas the petitioner was suspended although he was injured and he was removed to the Police Hospital at the instance of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Town/south ). A xerox ,copy of the F. I. R. is also annexed with the Affidavit-in-Reply. ( 8 ) DURING the course of the argument it was revealed by the learned Government Pleader that the Charge-sheet has already been served upon the petitioner containing as many as seven items of charges and Mr. S. K. Chakraborty, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, C. I. D. (Spl. Shell), West Bengal, has been appointed by the Inspector-General of Police (HQ.), West Bengal, as the Enquiry Officer. ( 9 ) MR. Ganguly, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that Reg. 880 of the Police Regulations of Bengal, 1943 relating to suspension specifically refer to the words "pending enquiry", and this expression meant that when the enquiry is actually pending and in progress otherwise the suspension order cannot be made. In this connection he cited A. I. R. 1972 S. C. 554 (P. R. Nayak vs. Union of India,) with reference to Rule 3 (1) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 to the effect that in a case of suspension of a member of the service initiation of disciplinary proceedings is condition precedent. He also cited another decision reported in 1980 (1) C. L. J. 149 (Pranab Prasanna Biswas vs. State of West Bengal and Others ). it also relates to Rule 3 as well as to Rule 16 of the aforesaid Rules of 1969 and discusses maintenance of discipline vis-a-vis whether suspension is justified. Mt. Ganguly in his argument discussed the material facts of the case made out in the writ petition and the Affidavit-in-Reply and submitted that the suspension order was bad, malafide and motivated and must be quashed. Mt. Ganguly in his argument discussed the material facts of the case made out in the writ petition and the Affidavit-in-Reply and submitted that the suspension order was bad, malafide and motivated and must be quashed. ( 10 ) THE learned Government Pleader in his argument submitted that the petitioner was suspended pending further enquiry so that further enquiry May either confirm or disapprove prime facie evidence of dereliction of duty and other lapses on the part of the petitioner. He further submitted that according to Rule 880 of the Police Regulations of Bengal the words pending enquiry, in fact, meant that one has been suspended to ascertain more, materials about his conduct and then to initiate a formal enquiry or not as the enquiry would reveal. If during pending enquiry no sufficient ground could be ascertained then of course the suspension order would be revoked otherwise the departmental enquiry would be initiated and completed with either order of acquittal or punishment as the case might be. As the petitioner was found very much inefficient during the preliminary enquiry to deal with the situation on the day when incident took place, it was too obvious that an order of suspension ought to have been issued to him pending enquiry. Therefore according to the learned Government Pleader there is no wrong in the order of suspension and it must sustain. ( 11 ) ARGUMENTS by both the sides were confined to Reg. 880 of Police, Regulations of Bengal and no reference was made to the Police Act, 1861 though Reg. 880 refers to Sec. 7 of the said Act. ( 12 ) HAVING considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned Advocates of the parties, let me first come to the impugned order of suspension dated 17th March, 1990 issued by the Inspector-General of Police (HQ.), West Bengal, which runs as follows : -"sri Chandranath Bhattacharjee, Inspector-in-Charge, Bantra Police Station, is placed under suspension with effect from the date of service of the order on him pending further enquiry in his conduct on 15. 3. 90 in connection with the wide-spread lawlessness in Bantra Police Station area, as his continuance in office is prejudicial to public interest. He, will draw half pay and usual allowance as subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. " ( 13 ) REG. 3. 90 in connection with the wide-spread lawlessness in Bantra Police Station area, as his continuance in office is prejudicial to public interest. He, will draw half pay and usual allowance as subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. " ( 13 ) REG. 880 of the Police Regulations of Bengal, 1943 relating to Suspension is quoted as follows :-"suspension is not to be considered a specific punishment, and is only authorised in cases where the continuance in an office of an officer pending enquiry into his conduct is pre-judicial to public interest. When enquiry is completed, some definite order of acquittal or punishment shall be recorded. "the petitioner in paragraph 11 has not quoted Reg. 880 correctly. From the second sentence of the said Regulation it is clear that after enquiry is completed some penal order would be passed or otherwise. The second sentence which is most vital for the petitioner was somehow omitted from the petition. Mr. Ganguly emphasised that pending enquiry means that the enquiry is in progress but from his quotation of the said Regulation the meaning was not clear unless the second sentence is added. A plain reading of Reg. 880 indicates that suspension is not a specific punishment and is authorised only in cases where the continuance in an office of an officer pending enquiry is prejudicial to public interest ; but from the language it is clear that though suspension is not a specific punishment, but, of course, is a 'punishment' in general. At that particular time when the suspension order was passed there was no pending enquiry and it has been rightly contended by the petitioner that pending enquiry mean the enquiry which is in progress and does not necessarily mean the enquiry which is in offing. Further, the element of "pending 'further' enquiry" is something foreign to Reg. 880. The said Regulation only refers to "pending enquiry" and the word 'further' cannot be inserted at the whim. of, the authorities. ( 14 ) STROUD states that a legal proceeding is 'pending' as soon as commenced and following this principle an enquiry is also pending as soon as it is commenced. A proceeding is "pending" as soon as commenced and until it is concluded. Matter actually pending means pending at the time of 'application' (Re Lister's Hospital, 26 L. T. O. S. 192 ). A proceeding is "pending" as soon as commenced and until it is concluded. Matter actually pending means pending at the time of 'application' (Re Lister's Hospital, 26 L. T. O. S. 192 ). "pending" and "anticipated" are poles apart (Robinson vs. Stren (1939) 2 K. B. 260) (Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, Vol. 4, 4th Edition, 1974 ). In the case of Labouchere vs. Wharncliffe (13 Ch. D. 346) 'inquiry' means after a fair enquiry into the truth, of the alleged facts by giving due notice and by taking and fairly considering the evidence (ibid, Vol. 2, 3rd Edition, 1952 ). The word "pending" as applied to proceedings is used in the general sense of commenced and not concluded (Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, Vol. 31a, 1957 ). Usual literary meaning of "inquiry" is question, query or request for information (ibid, Vol. 21a, 1960 ). According to the above authorities giving of notice and considering fairly the evidence is 'inquiry' and this goes to indicate that enquiry means departmental proceedings. ( 15 ) THE incident which triggered violence actually took place under Jagachha Police Station when one Sanjoy Patra was murdered. The Police Officials removed the deadbody of Patra to Howrah General Hospital Morgue. When returning back they could not proceed toward Das Nagar due to heavy blocking of read at Shanpur and they took shelter in Bantra Police Station which was attacked by a mob of about 5,000 as is indicated in the F. I. R. and due to the mob attack the petitioner sustained injury around 9. 30 A. M. and fell unconscious. It is clear from the F. I. R. lodged by the A. S. I. of Bantra Police Station which contains a complaint by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (T/s), Howrah, that he made arrangement for medical treatment of the injured police personnel including the Inspector-in-Charge, Bantra Police Station, by sending them to Shibpur Police Hospital. It is also clear that there was a firing when the crowd became unruly at about 11. 30 A. M. the same day and one. Prantik Mukherjee succumed to injury by police firing. This firing took place at the instance of some other police official and certainly not at the instance of the petitioner. It is also clear that there was a firing when the crowd became unruly at about 11. 30 A. M. the same day and one. Prantik Mukherjee succumed to injury by police firing. This firing took place at the instance of some other police official and certainly not at the instance of the petitioner. It is strange that no police personnel of any rank was placed under suspension and all the responsibility of negligence, dereliction of duty and incompetency was dumped upon the petitioner. It appears from the Affidavit-in-Opposition that whatever happened was due to the gross dereliction of duty and utter incompetency and handling the situation of law and order on 15th March, 1990 at the Bantra. Police Station. Ibis is just an allegation and requires to be proved in a departmental proceeding and, of course, if proved the petitioner will be liable treatment Bantra Police Station. This is just an allegation and requires to be proved in a departmental proceeding and, of course, if proved the petitioner is dealt with and the petitioner is put on departmental trial no conclusion can be drawn as to guilt of the petitioner. The so-called prima facie evidence of dereliction of duty and lapses on the part of the petitioner required a substantial footing to put any punishment though Reg. 880 refers that suspension not a specific punishment but from the discussion I made hereinbefore and shall make hereinafter this is just an eye-wash in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court. ( 16 ) THE concluding portion of paragraph 6 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition itself indicates that no prima facie conclusion has yet been arrived against the petitioner. Ale deponent, who is no one else than Mr. Simon John Philip, Inspector-General of the West Bengal Police, who passed the impugned order of suspension, in the said paragraph states as follows :-"a thorough and detailed enquiry to be undertaken subsequently in connection with the aforesaid incident or violence and lawlessness would reveal further evidence which may either confirm or disapprove a prima facie evidence of dereliction of duty and of other lapse of the petitioner. "this particular sentence clearly indicates that the authorities have not come to any prima facie conclusion of the dereliction of duty on tile part of the petitioner and one a detailed enquiry would reveal the exact position. "this particular sentence clearly indicates that the authorities have not come to any prima facie conclusion of the dereliction of duty on tile part of the petitioner and one a detailed enquiry would reveal the exact position. If the position is so and no prima facie case has been established before suspension, how strange it is on the part of the Inspector-General of West Bengal Police (HQ) to suspend an officer against whom the authorities themselves are doubtful whether any prima facie case exists against him or not for a departmental enquiry. The above statement made in the paragraph 6 of the. Affidavit-in-Opposition differs sharply with the statement made in paragraph 13 of the said Affidavit which is stated as follows :-"i state that the preliminary enquiries made by high ranking officers of the West Bengal Police disclosed Prima facie evidence of inaction, dereliction of duty and negligence on the part of the petitioner during the incident of the wide-spread lawlessness as aforesaid. " ( 17 ) IT is difficult to believe which of the two paragraphs of the Affidavit-in-Opposition quoted hereinbefore is correct and can be relied on. In paragraph 6 Prima facie case was yet to be established and in paragraph 13 the prima facie case has been established. The contradictory statements undoubtedly raise the doubt that the action taken was to protect some favoured personnel of the West Bengal Police and for this purpose the petitioner was made a scapegoat. ( 18 ) LET me examine the decision reported in A. I. R. 1972 S. C. 554 (supra) which relates to Rule 3 (1) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. A 6-Judge Bench led by Chief Justice S. M. Sikri Per Majority judgment held that an order of suspension of the delinquent: member of the service made before the actual initiation or commencement of disciplinary proceedings is bad and violative of Rule 3 (1) which relates to suspension during disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the operation of the said Rule is restricted only to those cases in which the Government concerned is possessed of sufficient material whether after preliminary investigation or otherwise and the disciplinary proceedings have in fact commenced and not merely when they are contemplated. The said Rule 3 (1) was amended in 1975 after the above decision of the Supreme. Court. The said Rule 3 (1) was amended in 1975 after the above decision of the Supreme. Court. But even the amended Rule makes provision that the suspension can be made only when articles of charge have been drawn up and it is found- necessary or desirable to place the delinquent under suspension, and from the nature of charge the Government is satisfied that the delinquent is to be put under suspension against whom disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or are pending. Even the amended Rule 3 (1) of the said Rules do not go a long way to support the respondents because the order of suspension. was made on 17th March, 1990 and the charge were framed on 2nd May 1990 and served upon the petitioner thereafter. ( 19 ) ONE further thing that appears from the order of suspension is that the petitioner was suspended only and solely in connection with the widespread lawlessness in Bantra Police Station area on 15th March, 1990 as his. continuation in office was prejudicial to public interest. A copy of the charge- sheet has been handed over to the Court by the State Advocate. The chargesheet as drawn up and signed by the Inspector-General of Police (HQ.), West Bengal, contains other allegations as well ,apart from that of 15th March, 1990 as appear from charge Nos. 6 and 7. Thus the charge framed against the petitioner goes beyond the scope of the suspension order and contains extraneous matters which were not the subject matter upon which the petitioner was suspended. ( 20 ) NOW let me see the decision in the case of Pranab Prasanna Biswas, vs. State of West Bengal and Others (supra) which is an important judgment on the point where the suspension is justified and was delivered by the present Chief Justice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Mr. Sabyasachi Mukherjee, when His Lordship was a Judge of this Hon'ble Court. His remarkable observation is as follows :-"discipline really generates from a sense of justice based on confidence. Sabyasachi Mukherjee, when His Lordship was a Judge of this Hon'ble Court. His remarkable observation is as follows :-"discipline really generates from a sense of justice based on confidence. If a government servant feels that before his case, is heard he is put under suspension unnecessarily then the moral is more shaken and in- discipline more, engineered than by creating an atmosphere that the government servants are given to understand that while the government will not permit insubordination and disobedience of the Government order but the penalty will be visited only after due process of law and without victimisation. If that sense can be created and that confidence generated, in any opinion, then the true basis and foundation of discipline would be laid within the administration who will be in charge of maintenance of the law and order, therefore, the very fact that the petitioner was being charged with insubordination and yet allowed to continue in the service pending the enquiry, in my opinion, would generate more confidence in the administration and create more sense of discipline among the police force who, as 1 said, must be maintained in a highly disciplined manner if law and order in this country has to be maintained. "though this decision is also based on the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 but the principle laid down by His Lordship is of vital importance and shields one from victimisation. ( 21 ) THOUGH no argument was advanced on the Police Act but even Sec. 7 of the said Act does not come to the rescue of the Respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 22 ) FROM the discussion hereinbefore made, I hold that the petitioner who is the Inspector-in-Charge of the Bantra Police Station and received several awards for his good performance of duties has been unnecessarily victimised and penalised by the Government. His suspension under Reg. 880 of the Police Regulations of Bengal, 1943 is nothing but an act of punishment to him before any prima facie case has been established and this is admitted by the respondents in the Affidavit-in-Opposition but because of the nervousness conflicting statement has been made in a subsequent paragraph on the prima facie establishment of the allegation. 880 of the Police Regulations of Bengal, 1943 is nothing but an act of punishment to him before any prima facie case has been established and this is admitted by the respondents in the Affidavit-in-Opposition but because of the nervousness conflicting statement has been made in a subsequent paragraph on the prima facie establishment of the allegation. The order of suspension is a prima facie punishment in spite of the fact that no prima facie case emerged out against the petitioner during the enquiry but he was not spared and suspension order was made on the plea of "pending further enquiry" to establish a case against the petitioner by hook or by crook. I further hold that a new or rather foreign element has been introduced in the impugned order of suspension as "pending further enquiry" in Reg. 880 of the Police Regulations of Bengal, 1943. There is no scope of any "pending further enquiry" in the said Reg. 880 and no one can be suspended if the first or preliminary enquiry does not reveal any prima facie case. It is clear that the ultimate object to suspend the petitioner was to save the skin of some police officials. If the views of the English authorities are taken into consideration then the 'inquiry' means the initiation and conclusion of the departmental proceedings and not enquiry without giving notice to the delinquent and without considering impartially the evidence. Following this principle there was no enquiry at all. The Inspector-General of Police (HQ.), West Bengal, issued the order No. 1 dated 17th March, 1990 suspending the petitioner not in a mechanical approach with 'non-application of mind but in a motivated way, and such an order of suspension is bad, illegal, mala fide as well as an act of high-handedness. ( 23 ) IN that view of the matter, 1 set aside and quash the order of suspension being Order No. 1 dated 17th March, 1990 issued by the Inspector-General of Police (HQ.), West Bengal. But the respondents shall be at liberty to transfer the petitioner from Bantra Police Station to any other police station nearby so that he may defend himself properly and without difficulty in the departmental proceeding which has already been initiated in May 1990. The petitioner shall get all his outstanding dues since 15th March, 1990 in accordance with law within 15th September, 1990. The petitioner shall get all his outstanding dues since 15th March, 1990 in accordance with law within 15th September, 1990. ( 24 ) THE writ application is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid direction. There will be no order as to costs. ( 25 ) LIBERTY is given to the Advocates-on-record to take down the operating portion for communication to the respondents. ( 26 ) IF urgent certified copy is applied for, the same be expenditiously given. ( 27 ) THE learned Government Pleader appearing for the State prays for stay of the judgment for a fortnight. The prayer is opposed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. ( 28 ) CONSIDERING the importance of the matter the judgment is stayed till 20th July, 1990. Application allowed