JUDGMENT 1. Mr.V.Subbiah, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 2. The five petitioners jointly filed the Writ Petition challenging their individual orders of suspension dated 28.11.2011 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villpuram Range. The first petitioner was working as Inspector of Police, Thirukovilur Police Station. The 2nd petitioner was a Special Sub Inspector of Police. The third petitioner is Head Constable, fourth and fifth petitioners are Police Constables. They were all working in the same police station. 3. In the individual impugned orders, it was stated that the petitioners have detained one Lakshmi, wife of Kasi and three other women of T.Mandapam Village, Thirukoilur Taluk near Manampoondi bye-pass road on 22.11.2011 night and violated the law and spoiled the image of the police force. It was stated that a criminal case was registered in Thirukovilur Police Station in Crime No.887 of 2011 under Sections 323, 427, 363, 380, 376 IPC R/W Section 3(1)(xii) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioners sent a representation dated 21.9.2012. 4. One such representation sent by the first is enclosed in page 14 of the typed set. It was stated by him that he had been under suspension since 28.11.2011 and he has not committed any mistake and therefore his suspension should be revoked. 5. It is now urged before this Court that pursuant to the investigation done, a Crime Scene Observation Report was also obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Villupuram on 3.12.2011 and an Expert Opinion was obtained from the Institute of Forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College, Chennai-3 on 14.2.2012 and it is not known as to how the petitioners obtained the copy of the reports. In any event, reliance was placed upon the said Reports. 6. According to the said report, there was no evidence of forceful physical restraint or forceful pushing down on floor of the 'Thaila Mara Thoppu -Eucalyptus Tree Grove' or pinning down on the ground, as there were no bodily injuries, such as abrasions, contusions or lacerations in any stage of healing. There were no hymenal injuries or injury to the adjacent parts of the hymen. There was no laboratory evidence of sexual intercourse. There was no tenderness of the vulva during the examination. 7. There were no hymenal injuries or injury to the adjacent parts of the hymen. There was no laboratory evidence of sexual intercourse. There was no tenderness of the vulva during the examination. 7. It is not clear as to how the said report is of any assistance to the petitioners, unless the police files a final report before the trial court and the trial court proceeds to conduct the trial in terms of the final report. At the maximum, the petitioners can make use of the said report as defence. It is not clear, even whether the said defences are open to them, in the light of the provisions of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and in the light of Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act and that question has to be decided by the trial court. At this stage, if any observation is made by this court, it will spoil the petitioners' defence before the trial court. 8. The orders of suspension have been passed by the highest authority, namely Inspector General of Police, North Zone, in charge ofDeputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram Range.If the petitioners had contended that he was in excess of his jurisdiction, this Court do not think that such a stand is in commensurate of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.It is suffice that the highest authority is entitled to suspend a person, who was working as a Subordinate Police Officer.The fact that no charge memo is issued, cannot improve the case of the petitioners, as the suspension has been made since the criminal case has been launched against them.Since the petitioners are accused of serious offencesmade against the women and the women belong to SC & ST and the Police are investigating the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders of suspension.Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.