Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. Petitioners are Government servants under suspension-on alleged charges of corruption, criminal conspiracy, falsification of the records, etc. They are all aggrieved by various orders issued by the State Government keeping them under suspension pending enquiry. 2. Charge against the petitioner in O.P. No. 9435 of 1997 was that while he was working as Forest Range Officer at Karulai for the period from 28.6.1986 to 12.1.1987, resorted to corrupt practices with ulterior motive to obtain undue pecuniary advantage to himself and to certain other officers. They entered into criminal conspiracy, and in pursuance thereof, jointly and severally connived with or colluded or abetted each other and allowed two private individuals to unauthorisedly cut 2802 teak trees during the period from November, 1986 to April, 1987 and to remove 2739 teak poles out of the total 2902 teak poles cut from 1972,1973,1974,1976 and 1977 teak plantations of Ezhuthukal within the Nedumkayam South Section of Karulai Range in Nilambur Division of the Forest Department. Government placed the petitioner and other forest officials under suspension vide order dated 11.6.1987. Later memorandum of charges were served on the petitioner and others and the case was entrusted with the Vigilance Tribunal, Trivandrum. A case was registered in the Vigilance Tribunal as Enquiry Case No. 20/91, While the matter was pending before the Tribunal, Government vide order dated 27.9.1991 reinstated the petitioner. 3. "Vigilance Tribunal proceeded with the case and submitted a report to the Government vide letter dated 30.7.1996. Vigilance Tribunal found petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him, and recommended imposition of the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. Government considered the report and decided to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement. Pending final decision, petitioner was suspended from service. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order and has filed this Writ Petition. 4. Petitioners in O.P. Nos. 8836, 8776 and 8996 of 1997 were working as Range Officer and Foresters respectively in the Kanayar Range of Achankovil Forest Division for the year 1993-1994. It was alleged petitioner in O.P. No. 8836 of 1997 abused his official position and entered into criminal conspiracy with others with the common object of deriving pecuniary gain to them by corrupt and illegal means in connection with execution of various civil works in the Achankovil Forest Division during 1993-94. It was alleged petitioner in O.P. No. 8836 of 1997 abused his official position and entered into criminal conspiracy with others with the common object of deriving pecuniary gain to them by corrupt and illegal means in connection with execution of various civil works in the Achankovil Forest Division during 1993-94. They colluded with two others and forged measurement book as well as bills in respect of various unexecuted works with the common object of deriving pecuniary gain. Those bills were passed by the then Divisional Forest Officer allowing them to derive pecuniary gain of Rs. 3,86,102.20 causing corresponding loss to the State Government.. Preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Conservator of Forests. One of his reports is referred to as Ext. P1 in O.P. No. 8996 of 1997. Another report dated 16.11.1994 was also submitted by Mm. Based on the report and considering the nature of serious irregularities, petitioners were kept under suspension in November, 1994, pending detailed enquiry. After conducting a preliminary enquiry, petitioners were reinstated in service pending disciplinary proceedings. 5. Deputy Superintendent of Vigilance Department, Kollam later completed the preliminary enquiry and submitted his report No. P1-T 309/95/Vig. Kollam dated 30.12.1995 before the Superintendent of Police (SR), who alse concurred with the enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. They recommended to register a case under Ss.468, 420, 409 IPC and under Ss.13(1)(c) and (2d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and under S.120B of the IPC. Director of Vigilance later forwarded the preliminary report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Kollam, along with the endorsement of the Superintendent of Police, Southern Range, to the Government vide letter dated 4.7.1996. Later a crime case No. 17/96 was registered against the petitioners at the Vigilance Police Station, Kollam. 6. Vigilance Directorate wrote to the Government on 31.1.1997 informing them that a case has been registered in the Vigilance Police Station, Kollam on 19.7.1996 and recommended to place the petitioners under suspension pending investigation. Deputy Superintendent of Police also submitted FIR to the Vigilance Director. Vigilance Director then perused the above mentioned reports and vide his letter dated 31.8.1996 opined that for a fair and proper investigation of the case, the continuance of the petitioners was not desirable. It was, therefore, recommended to place the petitioners under suspension till the completion of the investigation. Deputy Superintendent of Police also submitted FIR to the Vigilance Director. Vigilance Director then perused the above mentioned reports and vide his letter dated 31.8.1996 opined that for a fair and proper investigation of the case, the continuance of the petitioners was not desirable. It was, therefore, recommended to place the petitioners under suspension till the completion of the investigation. Petitioners are aggrieved by the said order of the Government, and have come up before this Court. 7.The question that has come up for consideration in all these cases is the extent and scope of the power of the State Government to place Government servants under suspension, when departmental proceeding is contemplated, or pending or any final orders are awaited in disciplinary proceeding, or any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. It has, therefore, become necessary to examine the various legal provisions which enable the State to place civil servants under suspension and also the nature of public interest involved and also the duty cast on the State to the public at large, when a civil servant is alleged to have been involved in an offence.] Civil Servants and their Status:] 8". Civil servants are employed by the State Government for discharge of public duties and holding a post to discharge duties in connection with the affairs of the State. The legal position of a Government servantis more a oneof status than of contract. The hall-mark of status is the attachment of a legal relationship of rights and duties imposed by public law. The duties of a status are fixed by law, and in the enforcement of these duties, society has an interest. Interest of the service under the State requires efficiency, honesty and impartiality and discipline and like qualities on the part of the public servant. State has got an obligation to its people in discharge of sovereign and Government functions through public servants. Through him, the State discharge its judicial, executive, revenue and police powers. He is the person with whom public have daily contacts. He is so important a functionary, therefore, that he should be well-disciplined, efficient and honest. He should secure and maintain high standard of administration. Every act of public servant should be to effectuate public interest and constitutional objective. Through him, the State discharge its judicial, executive, revenue and police powers. He is the person with whom public have daily contacts. He is so important a functionary, therefore, that he should be well-disciplined, efficient and honest. He should secure and maintain high standard of administration. Every act of public servant should be to effectuate public interest and constitutional objective. The doctrine of full faith and credit applied to the acts done by the public servants and the presumptive evidence of regularity attached to the officials done or performed is apposite in discharge of his public duties to achieve public purpose. Public servant is in the position of a trustee. Social power vests in him for the purpose of rendering service to the community at large. 9. Supreme Court in Krishnakant Raghunanth Babhavnekar v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 3 SCC 636 held that every act or the conduct of a public servant should be to effectuate the public purpose and constitutional objective. Public servant renders himself accountable to the public. Constitution has given full faith and credit in the conduct of public servant. Corrupt would be known to everyone. Reputation would gain notoriety. Government Servants under the Constitution and Laws : 10. Art.309 of the Constitution of India bestows powers on the Governors of the States and on such person, Governor may direct, in the case of service, in connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules regarding recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to such service. In exercise of the powers conferred by Art.309 of the Constitution of India, Governor of Kerala framed various rules governing the service of the civil servants of the State, (1) The Kerala Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960 were framed by the Governor of Kerala in supersession of all previous rules on the subject. These rules primarily govern the conduct of Government servants. They are framed in public interest and as a matter of public policy. They lay down the norms and standards for the conduct of Government servants in public interest. Various rules have been laid down so as to regulate the conduct of Government servants. Every Government servant shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty under R.3 of the Conduct Rules. They are even statutorily prevented from accepting any gift, gratuity, or reward without previous consent of the Government. Various rules have been laid down so as to regulate the conduct of Government servants. Every Government servant shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty under R.3 of the Conduct Rules. They are even statutorily prevented from accepting any gift, gratuity, or reward without previous consent of the Government. Restrictions are also placed in the matter of even holding immovable property. They are also statutorily prevented from taking part in politics, election, etc. All these restrictions have been made, because of the special status they command in the society. (2) Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & appeal) Rules, 1960 were also framed invoking the proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution of India. These rules apply to Government servants. They deal with provisions relating to disciplinary proceedings. Various provisions authorise the Government to place a Government servant under suspension, and to proceed with the enquiry proceedings. Power is vested on the Government to impose punishment, including compulsory retirement, removal, dismissal from service, etc. (3) the Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules, 1960, were also framed by Governor of Kerala in exercise of his power under the proviso to Art.309 of the Contitution of India. Rules authorise the State Government to refer to Tribunal any case or class of cases which they consider should be dealt with by the Tribunal, provided all cases relating to Gazetted Officers in respect of matters involving corruption on the part of such officers in the discharge of their official duties shall be referred to the Tribunal. A full-fledged enquiry is contemplated under the Rules. Tribunal can recommend to the Government the punishment which is to be imposed on a Government servant. Government has also got the power to consider the report of the Tribunal and send the same to the disciplinary authority for further action. (4) Kerala Public Services Act, 1960 was enacted by the State Government to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services, and posts, in connection with the affairs of the State of Kerala. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also made applicable to Government servants. Act was passed to make more effective provision for prevention of bribery and corruption. The object and purposes of the Act is to control the growing evil of corruption among the public servants. It is a social legislation and its provisions are to be liberally construed. 11. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was also made applicable to Government servants. Act was passed to make more effective provision for prevention of bribery and corruption. The object and purposes of the Act is to control the growing evil of corruption among the public servants. It is a social legislation and its provisions are to be liberally construed. 11. All the above mentioned Rules and Acts are primarily governing the conduct of Government servants and they are framed in public interest and as a matter of public policy. Government servants are expected to discharge functions pertaining to the affairs of the State and every act of Government servants require efficiency, honesty, impartiality and discipline. Duty of the State to the Public : 12. State has got duty and obligation to its people in discharge of sovereign and Government functions through its public servants. State has got an obligation to ensure that every public servant possesses the qualities of efficiency, honesty, impartiality and discipline, and to prevent any person lacking these qualities from being in public service. Today, State is not merely a police State, exercising sovereign function. All rights and obligations of the public servants are governed by Rules framed and in enforcement of these duties, people at large has not considerable interest. The very nature of the employment of the public servants demands conditions of service should be intimately intermingled with the public interest, 13. It is, therefore, evident from the above mentioned constitutional principle as well as various rules framed under the proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution of India, considerable amount of public interest is involved when a' Government servant is involved in an offence pertaining to misappropriation of funds, corruption, falsification of government records, and misconduct involving moral turpitude. 14. Therefore, we have to test the power of the Government to suspend a Government servant when they find a public servant prima facie guilty of certain offences under various penal statutes as well as under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act etc. In this connection, reference can be had to R.10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, which is extracted below: "10. In this connection, reference can be had to R.10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, which is extracted below: "10. Suspension: - (1) The appointing authority or any authority to which itis subordinate or any other authority empowered byl the Government in that behalf may at any time place a Government servant under suspension, (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial; or (c) where final orders are pending in the disciplinary proceeding. if the appropriate authority considers that in the then prevailing circumstances it is necessary, in public interest, that the Government servant should be suspended from service. Provided that the authority competent to place a member of the Kerala Civil Judicial Service or the Kerala Criminal Judicial Service under suspension shall be the High Court of judicature. (6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may at any lime be revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate. (Emphasis supplied) The above mentioned provision gives considerable amount of power to the Government or the authority concerned to place a Government servant under suspension at any time where a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated or pending, or, where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial, or where final orders are pending in the disciplinary proceeding. Such an order placing a Government servant under suspension can be issued if the authority considers that in the then prevailing circumstances it. is necessary in public interest that the Government servant should be suspended from service. Suspension order can be issued when the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or have started or charge sheet is given. During the preliminary enquiry it. may be necessary to find out facts from people working under him, or look into papers which are under his custody. If the public servant is allowed to continue, there may be occasion for tampering with the evidence. 15. During the preliminary enquiry it. may be necessary to find out facts from people working under him, or look into papers which are under his custody. If the public servant is allowed to continue, there may be occasion for tampering with the evidence. 15. On materials, if the Government comes to the conclusion that the public servant is involved in any serious misconduct, involving moral turpitude or when he is found guilty of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, etc., Government is justified in acting, because considerable amount of public interest is involved in the conduct of Government servant. 16. The object and purpose of placing a Government servant under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings or when a criminal case is under investigation or trial came up for consideration before this Court and Supreme Court on various occasions. Reference may be made to U.P. Rajaya Krishi Utpadan Maruli Parishad v. Sanjiv Raj an J.T. 1993 (2) SC 550 and State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126. 17. Supreme Court in the former case held whether the employees should or should not continue in their office during the period of inquiry is a matter to be assessed by the authority concerned and ordinarily the Court should not interfere with the orders of suspension unless they are passed malafide and without there being even a prima facie evidence on record connecting the employees with the misconduct in question. Supreme Court in the latter case has laid down the principle for keeping an officer under suspension. It was held 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 allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. Court or Tribunal must consider each case on is own facts and no general 1 aw could be 1 aid 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 tides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. Suspension must he a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. 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 tides, arbitrary or for ulterior purpose. Suspension must he 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. Above mentioned decisions of the Supreme Court were followed by this Court in M. Balakrishnan Nair v. Smite (1995) 2 KLJ 7 Nature of the Order of Suspension. 18. The order passed by the Government placing a Government servant under suspension is an administrative order and not a quasi-judicial order. Therefore, no opportunity need-be afforded to any employee to explain the charges on which he was sought to be suspended. Order of suspension is not an order imposing a punishment on a person. It is an order made on him, not because he is found guilty, but for the smooth conduct of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Order of suspension would be issued by the Government only when the Government comes to the conclusion that in public interest Government servant should be kept under suspension. There should be some material before the Government to reach that conclusion. Eventhough an element of subjective satisfaction is involved in every such order of suspension, it should he based on objective consideration and relevant circumstances. When there is no serious charge against the employee, Government could always in its wisdom transfer the employee to some other office or station, so that he would not interfere with the continuance of disciplinary proceeding. Eventhough an element of subjective satisfaction is involved in every such order of suspension, it should he based on objective consideration and relevant circumstances. When there is no serious charge against the employee, Government could always in its wisdom transfer the employee to some other office or station, so that he would not interfere with the continuance of disciplinary proceeding. When the allegations are of a serious nature, which have got considerable public interest, and those allegations are based on some relevant material, authority can always place the Government servant under suspension, even till the completion of the disciplinary proceeding, investigation or trial. It depends upon the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations as well as public interest involved. Such action of the Government would be justified so as to achieve the purity of administration. 19. However, it is not as if in every case, the moment a case is registered against a Government servant, he should be placed under suspension. R.10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules authorises the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf to place a Government servant under suspension, where a case against him 'in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial or if the appropriate authority considers that in the then prevailing circumstances it is necessary in public interest that the Government servant should be suspended from service. It is, therefore, evident that the suspension is not automatic. Appropriate authority has to apply its mind and decide as to whether a Government servant should be placed under suspension or not, taking into consideration the then prevailing circumstances and also public interest. It was so held by this Court in Sreekumar v. Kerala Water Authority, (1996) 1 KLT 209. Judicial Review of Orders of Suspension : 20. Supreme Court and this Court on various occasions have taken the view that suspension order is not a routine order. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. Stigma attached to an order of suspension cannot also he ignored. Supreme Court and this Court on various occasions have taken the view that suspension order is not a routine order. It should be on consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. Stigma attached to an order of suspension cannot also he ignored. Even recognising that suspension per se is no punishment, it cannot be denied that the opprobrium that suspension brings in its wake is, in some respect, worse than many of the penalties prescribed under the rules. The stigma that attaches to an officer under suspension cannot be wished away on the legalistic plea that it is no punishment. That is the reason why the courts always insist that before issuing an order of suspension the authority should be satisfied that in public interest there is material at least prima facie to place an officer under suspension. Courts have always power to look into those records and to satisfy themselves as to-whether there are materials before the authority to issue such an order of suspension. All the same, court will not re appreciate or re-weigh the whole evidence unless it is proved that the suspension order is vitiated by mala fide or irrelevant, considerations or issued on extraneous consideration or with improper motive. As held by the Supreme Court in A.K.K. Nambiar v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 652, in order to succeed on the proof of mala fides in relation to the order of suspension, the party has to prove either that the order of suspension was mala fide or that the order was made for collateral puzzles. Court is not concerned with the correctness or the propriety of the report based on which the suspension order was issued. The court will examine whether the order of suspension was warranted by the rule and also whether it was in honest exercise of power. Supreme Court in its recent decision in Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar Bhola, (1997) 4 SCC 1, upheld the suspension of a bank employee for 10 years reversing the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which interfered with the order of suspension. Supreme Court held that there was material on record before the Bank in the form of report of the CBI/SPF. Supreme Court held that there was material on record before the Bank in the form of report of the CBI/SPF. which clearly indicated the acts of commission Und omission amounting to moral turpitude alleged to have been committed by the employee. Supreme Court further held allowing such an employee to remain in the seat would result in giving him further opportunity to indulge in the acts for which he was being prosecuted. 21. It is therefore, evident that it is not the number of years a Government employee kept under suspension that matters, but the gravity and the seriousness of the offence. If the authority comes to the conclusion that the Government, employee would repeat the mischief, if he is reinstated in service, and that the materials already collected on enquiry establish a prima facie case against the Government servant, it can keep the Government servant away from duty till completion of the investigation or enquiry, and the same cannot be said to be illegal or improper. In other words, continuing the delinquent on duly would be against public interest and would afford opportunity to the delinquent to indulge in similar acts and therefore, the authorities are justified in keeping the delinquent under suspension. Reinstatement also would not be a charter for him to indulge with impunity in committing the same offence. 22. In O.P. No. 9435 of 1997, Vigilance Tribunal constituted by the Government under Kerala Civil Service (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules found that the charges levelled against the petitioner proved and recommended compulsory retirement. Report of the Vigilance Tribunal was provisionally accepted by the Government, and consequently they decided to keep that public servant under suspension. They decided to issue show cause notice with regard to proposed punishment. Therefore, petitioner was kept under suspension after a full-fledged enquiry by the Vigilance Tribunal, which found the petitioner guilty of the charge levelled against him. Therefore, there are sufficient materials before the Government to keep-that officer under suspension. 23. In the other three O. Ps. crime under Ss.468, 420 and 409 IPC and Ss.1.3(1)(c), (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and S.120B IPC were registered in the Vigilance Police Station, Kollam on 19.7.1996. Deputy Superintendent of Police submitted a FIR to the Vigilance Director. Superintendent of Police perused the above mentioned report and vide his letter CR*7/96/Vig. crime under Ss.468, 420 and 409 IPC and Ss.1.3(1)(c), (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and S.120B IPC were registered in the Vigilance Police Station, Kollam on 19.7.1996. Deputy Superintendent of Police submitted a FIR to the Vigilance Director. Superintendent of Police perused the above mentioned report and vide his letter CR*7/96/Vig. Kollam dated 31.8.1996 opined that for a fair and proper investigation of the case, continuance of the petitioners was not desirable. Therefore, he recommended to the Director of Vigilance to place the petitioners under suspension. Vigilance Directorate also vide their letter dated 31.1.1997 wrote to the Government that the petitioners and certain others would be kept under suspension pending investigation. Its is after perusing the above mentioned records that the Government have issued Ext. P4 order dated 21.5.1997 placing the petitioner under suspension. 24. I have gone through the records made available to me in all these cases and I am of the view that there are, prima facie, materials before the Government to pass the orders of suspension. Government had before them the order of the Vigilance Tribunal, report of the Investigating Officers, and also the opinion of the Director of Vigilance. Therefore, it cannot be said that Government was acting on irrelevant materials or that they are acting mala fide or with ulterior motive. 25. It was contended by counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were earlier suspended and after conducting a preliminary enquiry, they were reinstated, and therefore, there is no justification in issuing a second suspension order. R.10 says that the Government can at any time place a Government servant under suspension. Power of the authority to place a Government servant under suspension for more than one occasion came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in U.P. Rajyu Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Sanjiv Rajan, (1993) III Supp. S.C.C. 483 and the Supreme Court held that there was no restriction on a competent authority to pass a second suspension order. 26. In the instant case, it is seen that even after reinstatement the authorities proceeded with the enquiry and collected materials and in one case, Vigilance Tribunal found that the charge levelled against the employee was proved. Therefore, all those subsequent materials collected by the authority are relevant materials so as to pass the second suspension order. 26. In the instant case, it is seen that even after reinstatement the authorities proceeded with the enquiry and collected materials and in one case, Vigilance Tribunal found that the charge levelled against the employee was proved. Therefore, all those subsequent materials collected by the authority are relevant materials so as to pass the second suspension order. As I have already mentioned when on materials Government find that a public servant who is entrusted with the duty of discharge of public functions involving the affairs of the State is found to be prima facie guilty of serious misconduct, in public interst, it is always open to the Government to pi ace those Government servants under suspension. 27. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that since the enquiry has already' been completed, and since they are transferred away from their respective office, there is no justification in further keeping them under suspension. In other words, it was contended by counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were kept away from the mischief range, and therefore, there is no reason to think that they would in any way interfere with the investigation or enquiry. I am of the view, even if the enquiry or investigation is over, Government is not powerless to keep a Government servant under suspension. As I have already mentioned Government can keep a Government servant under suspension, depending upon the gravity of the misconduct and the nature of allegations imputed against the delinquent employee, and also the public interest. Rules also authorise the Government to consider the prevailing circumstances. What are all prevailing circumstances is a question of fact. There may be very many reasons for keeping a Government servant under suspension. Government have their own machinery to ascertain generally the working of a Government office and the conduct of a Government servant. 28. In the instant cases, it cannot be said that materials gathered by the authority are irrelevant and unreliable so as to issue an order of suspension. Petitioners also could not establish that the suspension orders are vitiated by mala fide, or issued on irrelevant reasons. In the said circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders of suspension. Original Petitions are accordingly dismissed.