JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Petitioners, Assistant Excise Commissioner, and Circle Inspector of Excise, under the service of the first respondent, have approached this Court challenging the validity of an order dated 25-10-1995 placing them under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. 2. The incident which led to the suspension originated as follows. When the first petitioner was working as Assistant Excise Commissioner, Aluva Range, during 1994-95, Arrack shops Group No.II/94-95 of Aluva Range was bid in auction by one Vijayan. He was issued with a permit No.243/94-95 by the first petitioner for importing 12,000 litres of rectified spirit from Madhya Pradesh. The contractor on the strength of the permit imported 12,000 litres of rectified spirit and brought the same to his godown No.3/94-95 at Ampattukavu. The licensee is governed by the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules, hereinafter called the 'Rules' and by the various provisions of the Kerala Abkari Act. As per R.8(15) the rectified spirit imported shall be released to the licensee from the godown only after subjecting them to a chemical analysis. As per Rules, one same was sent for chemical analysis. The Chemical Examiner issued a certificate that the rectified spirit is fit for human consumption after proper dilution. On the basis of the certificate, 7,000 litres of rectified spirit was released from the godown and the same was converted into arrack. Three samples of arrack were taken and one was sent for chemical analysis. After chemical examination, the Chemical Examiner issued a certificate stating that the arrack contained 0.044g/100ml. acetaldehyde and the same is not fit for human consumption. Consequently, 7,000 litres of arrack was freezed, sealed and kept under the custody of the first petitioner in the licensed godown. The remaining 5,000 litres of rectified spirit was reduced to arrack and was subjected to chemical analysis. The same was certified to be fit for human consumption, and the same was released to the contractor for sale. 3. The contract period of 1994-95 expired in March, 1995. The same contractor bid the shops in the auction for the year 1995-96. The contractor opened a new godown at Keezhmadu. 7,000 litres of arrack certified as unfit for human consumption which belonged to the contractor was shifted to the godown at Keezhmadu. 3. The contract period of 1994-95 expired in March, 1995. The same contractor bid the shops in the auction for the year 1995-96. The contractor opened a new godown at Keezhmadu. 7,000 litres of arrack certified as unfit for human consumption which belonged to the contractor was shifted to the godown at Keezhmadu. For the year 1995-96 the contractor requested for a further chemical examination of the arrack blended from 7,000 litres which was once certified to be unfit for human consumption. It is seen that the first petitioner issued a letter No.E4-8767/94 dated 23-3-1995 to the second petitioner with specific reference to Ext.P3 to find out a solution in the matter urgently and to report compliance. The second petitioner therefore took a sample of arrack for chemical analysis. The Chemical Examiner issued a certificate on 3-4-1995 certifying that the arrack is fit for human consumption. The second petitioner sent a report to the first petitioner requesting sanction for release of. the arrack. The first petitioner then sent a letter dated 31-7-1995 to the Junior Scientific Officer to take samples of arrack kept frozen in the godown in the presence of the second petitioner. The second petitioner was directed to assist the Junior Scientific Officer. The Junior Scientific Officer then issued Ext. P7 certificate dated 7-8-1995 stating that all samples are free from noxious materials injurious to health. It was stated that item Nos. 1, 10, 11 and 13 are fit for human consumption and other items are fit for human consumption after proposed dilution only. The first petitioner then issued Ext.P8 letter dated 16-8-1995 to the second petitioner to release the frozen quantity of arrack to the contractor after making it of the prescribed strength, since it is certified as fit for human consumption. 4. When the frozen quantity of arrack was about to be released, it is stated that the Board officials got information of the same and they conducted an enquiry through the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Central Zone. After conducting a detailed enquiry, be submitted a report dated 24-8-1995 to the Excise Commissioner. He concluded that the petitioners are connived with the abkari licensee for releasing the frozen quantity of arrack which was once certified to be unfit for human consumption. After conducting a detailed enquiry, be submitted a report dated 24-8-1995 to the Excise Commissioner. He concluded that the petitioners are connived with the abkari licensee for releasing the frozen quantity of arrack which was once certified to be unfit for human consumption. The Commissioner of Excise conducted another enquiry through the Joint Commissioner of Excise, who also opined that the petitioners are actively involved in connivance with the contractor for the release of frozen consignment of arrack. On the basis of various reports, the Secretary Excise reported the matter to the Government vide his letter dated 6-10-1995. The connivance of the petitioners in the whole episode was highlighted by the Secretary to the Government. The Government examined various reports in detail and satisfied that there was a prima facie case of serious irregularity and mala fide motives against the petitioners warranting disciplinary action against them. It is to facilitate such an enquiry, petitioners were kept under suspension vide Ext.P9 order. 5. I heard senior counsel for the petitioners, Sri.T.P.Kelu Nambiar, as well as learned Advocate General. The learned Advocate general made available to me the connected files with the enquiry reports submitted by the officers in connection with the entire episode. One of the contentions raised by senior counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners acted bona fide. It was stated that there is no legal bar in conducting a second chemical examination in respect of arrack kept in the godown when a request is made by the contractor to that effect. It was contended by senior counsel that in the absence of any legal bar, there cannot be any objection in subjecting the frozen quantity for re-examination. Counsel further contended that even if there is any violation of R.8(16) of the Rules for not disposing of the frozen quantity of arrack or there is failure on the part of the petitioners in not consulting the Commissioner of Excise, the same is only an error of judgment. It was contended that frozen quantity of arrack has not been released to the contractor and is still kept in the godown, and it is open to the authorities to conduct a re-examination to ascertain as to whether it is fit for human consumption. It was contended that there is no necessity to keep the petitioners under suspension, pending disciplinary proceedings. 6. It was contended that there is no necessity to keep the petitioners under suspension, pending disciplinary proceedings. 6. Learned Advocate General contended that there is ample evidence in this case to show that the petitioners connived with the contractor for release of frozen quantity of arrack. Learned Advocate General referred to the letter dated 23-3-1995 written by the first petitioner to the second petitioner wherein he has shown interest to find out a solution with specific reference to the frozen quantity of arrack. According to the State petitioners have violated R.8(16) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules by not disposing of the frozen quantity of arrack and not informing or consulting the Commissioner of Excise in this respect. According to learned Advocate General, there is mala fide intention on the part of both the petitioners in taking action to release the frozen quantity of arrack. It was further contended that but for the timely intervention by the authorities, frozen quantity of arrack would have already been released to the contractor for human consumption, which would have led to disastrous consequences. It is under the above mentioned circumstances that the Government has issued Ext. P9 suspension order. It was contended that it is valid. 7. Trade in liquor has historically stood on a different footing from other trades. Restrictions which are not permissible with other trades are lawful and reasonable so far as the trade in liquor is concerned. That is why even prohibition of the trade in liquor is not only permissible but is also reasonable. The reasons are public morality, public interest and harmful and dangerous character of the liquor. The State possesses the right of complete control over all aspects of intoxicants, viz., manufacture, collection, sale and consumption. The State has exclusive right to manufacture and sell liquor and to sell the said right in order to raise revenue. The State under its regulatory powers has the right to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants- its manufacture, storage, export, import, sale and possession. It has been held by the Supreme Court that a citizen has no fundamental right under Art.19(1)(g) to carry on trade or business in liquor. To control the said activities Rules in the nature of Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules have been laid down. It has been held by the Supreme Court that a citizen has no fundamental right under Art.19(1)(g) to carry on trade or business in liquor. To control the said activities Rules in the nature of Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules have been laid down. One of the rules, which is relevant for the purpose is R.8(16) which states that arrack if found not fit for human consumption shall be taken into custody at once by the Excise Officials, and the same shall be disposed of as per rules in consultation with the Commissioner of Excise, whose decision Shall be final. Just like the rules under the Abkari Laws are stringent and binding on the licensees, those rules are equally binding on those officers who are dealing with licensees as well. It is not as if the contractors are alone bound by the various rules laid down under the Abkari Act. Rules are equally applicable to persons at the helm of affairs as well. Just like law is strict against persons who are dealing with dangerous substances, it is also strict against persons who have been placed in a situation to enforce the rules. The reports submitted by the officers prima facie highlight the involvement of the petitioners in the episode as well as point out their failure in complying with R.8(16) of The Rules. 8. The suspension order, Ext. P9 may also be tested in the light of Supreme Court decisions in U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Sanjiv Rajan, JT. 1993 (2) SC 550, and State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, 1994 (4) SCC 126 . It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the former case that whether the employees should or should not continue in their office during the period of inquiry is a matter to be assessed by the concerned authority and ordinarily the Court should not interfere with the orders of suspension unless they are passed mala fide and without there being even a prima facie evidence on record connecting the employees with the misconduct in question. In the instant case, no mala fide has been alleged or proved against the respondents. In the instant case, no mala fide has been alleged or proved against the respondents. On the other hand, the Government has acted on the basis of some material which imputed motives on the part of the petitioners and authorities felt that they should be kept away from service so as to facilitate an enquiry. The Supreme Court in the latter case has laid down the principle for keeping an officer under suspension. The Supreme Court has said that it will not be an administrative routine or an automatic order to suspend an employee. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law could be laid down in that behalf. Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of office or post held by him. It would be another thing if the action is actuated by mala fides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. The suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority also should keep in mind public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge. In other words, it is to refrain him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employee could get away even pending inquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to the delinquent officer to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had the opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry, etc. In the instant case, it is worthwhile to note that the charge levelled against the petitioners is with regard to noxious substances inherently dangerous to humanity. When persons at the helm of affairs are alleged to be involved in such charges, the authority has to keep in mind the public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental enquiry. When persons at the helm of affairs are alleged to be involved in such charges, the authority has to keep in mind the public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental enquiry. In the instant case, I am of the view that the Government is justified in keeping the petitioners under suspension pending enquiry. I therefore do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P9 order in exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Original petition is dismissed. When the judgment was pronounced, counsel for the first petitioner sumitted that he is due to retire on 31st March 1996, and therefore the enquiry proceedings may be expedited. I heard learned Advocate General submitted that at least four months' time is required for completing the enquiry proceedings. Considering the fact that the first petitioner is due to retire on 31st March 1996, I am inclined to direct the respondents to complete the enquiry proceedings within four months from today. I order accordingly. Issue photocopy of this judgment to counsel on both sides on usual terms.