JUDGMENT B.N. Patnaik, J. 1. Petitioners in O.P. No. L0306 of 1997-B are the appellants. By Ext. P-1 order dated 12th June 1997, they have been placed under suspension while working as Assistant Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department. Ext. P-1 narrates that while the first petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer, Kallada Irrigation Project, R.B. Section No. 4/1, Thenmala and the second petitioner while working as Assistant Executive Engineer, K.I.P. R.B. Sub-section No. I, Thenmala, between December 1985 and June 1988, abused their official position and entered into criminal conspiracy with Sri K. N. Sathyapalan, Public Works Contractor and committed irregularities in the work of formation of inspection road along with periphery of the water spread area between Pallavetty Saddle Dam and Parappar Dam and obtained pecuniary gain of Rs. 47,865. A Vigilance Case as No. 1/97 was registered in the Vigilance Police Station, Kollam on 15th February 1997 under S.13 (2) read with S.13(1) (d) of P. C. Act, 1988 and S.468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against them. Government have examined the case in detail and felt that for a fair and proper investigation of the case it is not desirable to allow the petitioners to continue in service till the investigation is completed. The Government, therefore, in public interest, ordered that the petitioners be placed under suspension for facilitating a fair and proper investigation of the case. This action was taken on the basis of the First Information Report dated 15th February 1997 (Ext. P-2) in respect of alleged offences which occurred between 7th February 1986 and 11th September 1.986. The F.I.R. allegation shows that while the petitioners were working as Assistant Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer, K.I.P.R.B. Sub Division No. 1, Thenmala respectively entered into a criminal conspiracy with the contractor with a view to make pecuniary gain to themselves by adopting corrupt and illegal means in connection with the execution of the work in that Project. In pursuance of the conspiracy, both the petitioners committed forgery in M. Book No. 16/86 and dishonestly suppressed the fact that a quantity of 1994.40 M3 rubble was issued to the contractor for another work and that no suggestion was made to recover the cost of the above rubble from CC III and part bill in favour of the contractor. In pursuance of the conspiracy, both the petitioners committed forgery in M. Book No. 16/86 and dishonestly suppressed the fact that a quantity of 1994.40 M3 rubble was issued to the contractor for another work and that no suggestion was made to recover the cost of the above rubble from CC III and part bill in favour of the contractor. As a result of the above acts, the then Executive Engineer passed the bill without effecting the recovery of the cost of the above rubble, allowing the petitioners to derive undue pecuniary gain of Rs. 47,865 being the cost of the above rubble at the rate of Rs. 24/M3. They also committed irregularities in connection with the execution of item No. 3 of agreement schedule relating to blasting and removing of hard rock by recording false quantities either in respect of blasted hard rock or serviceable rubble obtained from blasting hard rock and thereby they derived undue pecuniary gain during 1.986 causing corresponding loss to the Government. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, Kollam also sent a report to the Government making various allegations of alleged corrupt practices and on the basis of such a report, the State Government passed Ext. P-1 order of suspension. 2. The petitioners/appellants have contended that the allegation of forgery etc., is totally false. In fact, both of them have suggested to the Executive Engineer for recovery of an amount of Rs. 47,865 from the final bill of the contractor. It is clear from M. Book No. 67/88 page 50, which is in the custody of the Vigilance Department, that the said amount has been realised from the contractor in 1990 while passing the final bill of the contractor. But, this fact has been conveniently suppressed by the Vigilance Police in the First Information Report as well as in the report submitted to the Government. 3. The learned Government Pleader contended that the suspension order is not passed only on the basis of the allegation in Ext. P-1 but also because of other irregularities committed by the petitioners for which a criminal case has been instituted by the Vigilance Department. Suspension being not a punishment, the Government has passed Ext. P-1 order with a view to conduct an investigation fairly and properly. 4. P-1 but also because of other irregularities committed by the petitioners for which a criminal case has been instituted by the Vigilance Department. Suspension being not a punishment, the Government has passed Ext. P-1 order with a view to conduct an investigation fairly and properly. 4. The learned Single Judge held that the suspension order cannot be revoked; nor any direction can be given to the Government to revoke the same in view of serious allegations of corrupt practice against the petitioners, 5. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/ appellants and the learned Government Pleader. We also called for the revelant files relating to this proceeding including the Measurement Books and copies of the bills. 6. On a perusal of the relevant files, we find that the statement of the appellants/petitioners that they had suggested to the then Executive Engineer to deduct a sum of Rs. 47,865 from the final bill of the contractor and in due course the same was deducted from the final bill, is true. The incident, relating to which this proceeding has been initiated, relates to the year 1986 and the final bill was passed in 1990. Seven years thereafter this criminal proceeding was initiated against the petitioners/appellants without proper verification of the relevant records. We are surprised to find that neither the Vigilance Officer in his report nor the informant of the First Information Report has mentioned the true facts of the case. They have suppressed the fact that the petitioners had no occasion to make any pecuniary gain of Rs. 47,865; nor they have caused any loss to the Government at any time. 7. We are constrained to say that the concerned authorities of the Government without proper application of the mind, accepted the report of the Vigilance Dy. S.P. mechanically and passed the impugned order (Ext. P-1). We have also perused the report of the Dy. S. P. Though he has referred to many other incidents, yet the suspension order was passed only because of the allegation that the petitioners/appellants made unlawful pecuniary gain of Rs. 47,865. We are not impressed with the manner in which the Vigilance Dy. S.P. placed the matter before the State Government. On our direction, the concerned Dy. S.P., Kollam, who is in charge of the investigation of the case, appeared before us. 47,865. We are not impressed with the manner in which the Vigilance Dy. S.P. placed the matter before the State Government. On our direction, the concerned Dy. S.P., Kollam, who is in charge of the investigation of the case, appeared before us. We confronted all the documents to him and asked him as to why he suppressed the aforesaid fact in his report. He has no answer, though he admitted that he knew about it. We find that as a result of this misleading report of the Dy. S.P., the Government was misguided and took this drastic action of starting criminal proceedings against the petitioners and placing them under suspension. 8. Indiscriminate and arbitrary orders of suspension of responsible officers of the Government may lead to demoralisation of the bureaucracy. If the morale of the officers of the State is damaged, it is bound to have adverse effect on the administration. 9. In this case, we are constrained to say that the officers of the Vigilance Department in their zeal to institute a proceeding against the petitioners made some untrue statements. That itself is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt that the facts narrated in the F.I.R. and in the report of the Vigilance Dy. S.P. may not be fully correct. Therefore, the suspension order (Ext. P1) is not well founded. 10. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and quash Ext. P-1 order. The Government is directed to reinstate the petitioners/ appellants forthwith. It is open to the petitioners to make a representation to the State Government for treating the period of suspension as on duty. On receipt of such representation, the State Government shall take a decision within three months thereafter. 11. The writ appeal is allowed. No costs.