C. K. THAKKER, J. ( 1 ) MR. N. D. Tiwari, learned advocate appears for the respondent and waives service of notice of admission. In the facts and circumstances of the case, appeal is taken up for final hearing today. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10530 of 1996 on April 30, 1996. On that day, the learned Single Judge passed the following order :"in response to the notice issued by this Court neither of the respondents has appeared. Besides, a complaint being Crime Register No. 28/96 is lodged against one Kashinath, a Police Sub-Inspector. The said complaint does not refer to the present petitioner, who has been serving as police Constable in ghatlodiya Police Station. By way of ad-interim order implementation and further operation of the impugned order of suspension dated 3rd December, 1996 Annexure-A to the petition is stayed. Direct service permitted. " ( 3 ) WE have heard Mr. Bambhania, learned AGP for the Appellant and Mr. Tiwari,learned counsel for the Respondent. Mr. Bambhania submitted that it is true that the date in Special Civil Application No. 10530 of 1996, decided on 8th July, 1997 on which the matter was placed on Board, nobody appeared on behalf of the Respondent. He, however, stated that there was some communication gap on the part of the State authorities and in these circumstances, no one could appear. At the same time, however, according to Mr. Bambhania, the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and ought not to have granted relief, which is of mandatory nature and that too against an order of suspension which is preventive in character and by directing the appellant-State to continue the respondent Police Constable by allowing him to perform functions, and discharge duties. ( 4 ) IT was submitted that what weighed with the learned Single Judge was that in First information Report, lodged at ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad on October 4, 1996 neither the name of the respondent was mentioned nor the role played by him was described. Filing of FIR, however, is merely a beginning and not an end. ( 4 ) IT was submitted that what weighed with the learned Single Judge was that in First information Report, lodged at ACB Police Station, Ahmedabad on October 4, 1996 neither the name of the respondent was mentioned nor the role played by him was described. Filing of FIR, however, is merely a beginning and not an end. In pursuant to lodging of FIR, investigation started and during the investigation, statement were recorded and it was found that not only the respondent played a role, but it was an active role. In this connection, our attention was invited to paragraph 4 of the Affidavit-in-Reply which was to be filed in Special Civil Application by one Vijayrajsinh Gautam, IPS, DCP {zone-II}, Ahmedabad. Mr. Bambhania stated that the affidavit was prepared and was ready but due to some communication gap, it could not be produced and nobody could appear. Paragraph No. 4 of the said Affidavit-in-Reply reads thus :"4. With reference to para 4 and contention thereof it is submitted that the petitioner alongwith PSI were incharge of the investigation in Ghatlodiya police Station M. Case No. 41 of 1996 and for giving favour to the complainant an amount of Rs. 500/- has been demanded as per the facts reported to the administration, it is the case of the administration that at the time of trap it has been conveyed by the PSI that let petitioner may turn-up and thereafter account will be settled. It is submitted that pursuant to request made by the original complainant an amount of Rs. 500/- alleged to have been accepted by the PSI for and on behalf of petitioner and PSI. The further investigation revealed that petitioner and PSI both were the author of the demanding the gratification and accepting the gratification. It is submitted that the investigation by assessing all the facts came to the conclusion for entire episode of demanding illegal gratification and accepting the gratification the petitioner has played main role and therefore the appropriate proceedings were initiated for arraign the petitioner as accused in the criminal proceedings in confirmity with the facts revealed during the investigation and same is lodged before the Honble Court. It is further submitted that petitioner was writer Constable of the P. S. I, and accordingly incharge of the investigation alongwith the P. S. I. It is submitted that accordingly sanction to prosecute has been accorded. It is further submitted that petitioner was writer Constable of the P. S. I, and accordingly incharge of the investigation alongwith the P. S. I. It is submitted that accordingly sanction to prosecute has been accorded. Thus prima facie facts revealed during the investigation and thereafter lead to the conclusion that active service of the petitioner is detrimental to the proceedings and further process and therefore orders of suspension has been passed in the interest of administration as the petitioner cannot be trusted as a police force member on active duty further more and if the criminal proceedings is terminated wherein the petitioner is also arraigned for the charges punishable under the provisions of the Corruption Act and in that view of the matter, it is humbly submitted that this Honble Court may be pleased to reject the petition in limine with costs. " ( 5 ) MR. Bambhania submitted that in the light of what is stated in paragraph 4, prima facie case has been made out against the respondent. When preventive action is taken, the learned Single Judge ought not to have granted relief, at interim stage. ( 6 ) WE see considerable force in the argument of Mr. Bambhania. It cannot be gainsaid that the allegations are of serious nature. They relate to an offence of corruption. If in the light of such allegations, a preventive action of suspension is taken, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable or improper. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent stated that in view of interim order in favour of the respondent during the pendency of the petition, he may be permitted to work. In our opinion, such prayer cannot be granted in light of what is stated above. It is open to the learned advocate for the respondent to request the learned Single Judge to hear and decide the main matter expeditiously. As and when such a prayer is made, the learned single Judge will consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. ( 8 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set-aside, and is accordingly set-aside. As and when such a prayer is made, the learned single Judge will consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. ( 8 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set-aside, and is accordingly set-aside. ( 9 ) BEFORE parting with the judgment, we may state that all the above observations, made by us hereinabove, have been made are only to dispose of this Letters Patent appeal, and as and when the petition will be heard by the learned Single Judge, the same would be decided in accordance with law without being influenced in any manner by the observations made by us hereinabove. Appeal is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. .