ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings in Rc.No.V1/20022/1/ 2020-4 dated 22.02.202 directing the 3rd respondent to take action for suspending the petitioner and others and consequential suspension proceedings of 3rd respondent A1/228/2021/11 dated 22.02.2021 as bad, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, mechanical, non-application of mind and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. 2. Petitioner was initially appointed as Attender on 26.12.2001. Thereafter, he was promoted as Record Assistant on 23.05.2012, Junior Assistant on 24.05.2014 and Senior Assistant on 12.02.2019 and working as Senior Assistant as on date. In the year 2019, he was allotted to duties in “Festival Section” and after working for one year, he was allotted the duties in “Sarees Section” in the year 2020. Since then, he was working in “Sarees Section”. The following are the duties, the petitioner has to discharge in the “Sarees Section”. a. Godown Incharge b. Receiving and issuing Sarees c. Maintaining the file work 3. The procedure being followed in the temple is that if any saree is donated to the Diety, the same will be deposited in the saree receiving counter situated in the main temple premises at 7th floor. Thereafter, the saree will be scanned along with bar code and photograph will be taken. Thereafter, the same will be carried by one Sambaiah from 7th floor to godown which is in the 5th floor. The same shall be received by the petitioner and keep the same in the godown for safe custody. If the Vydic Committee request for any saree the same will be given, after the indent is released by the Executive Officer for performance of Poojas and other ritual to the goddess. 4. While matter stood thus, the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) conducted a surprise check on 18.02.2021 in the temple premises and as per their Radio Message two points were found against the petitioner and on the basis of the same, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The following are the two alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner in discharging his duties: “a. Two Pattu Sarees were not found in Sarees Godown of Rs.7000/-and Rs.3500/-. The following are the two alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner in discharging his duties: “a. Two Pattu Sarees were not found in Sarees Godown of Rs.7000/-and Rs.3500/-. b. On verification of Pattu Sarees on Barcode scanner, found two sarees of Rs.15000/-and Rs.2500/-the bar coding was not matched.” 5. Based on the two alleged irregularities attributed to this petitioner in utmost haste without properly verifying the records and applying the mind, the order impugned in the writ petition was passed. It is specifically contended that relating to saree worth Rs.3,500/-an indent was raised as per the orders of the Executive Officer on 04.02.2021 basing on which an entry was made in the sarees issue register at page No.81 and the same was sent to the Vydic Committee by making an endorsement PAT-210122000004 Dt. 22.01.2021 as such the same is not misappropriated. 6. Regarding Rs.7,000/-Pattu Saree is concerned, the same is available in godown but the bar code scanner was separated from the saree and detached to it without proper verification. 7. It is further contended that, non matching of bar code amount of Rs.15000/-and Rs.2500/-is not the fault of the petitioner because it is the person in the receiving counter has to take the photograph of the saree and scan the bar code. The sarees are very much available but the photos taken by the receiving counter does not match. Hence, it is not his mistake. Finally, it is contended that there is no allegation against this petitioner except the technical issues for which suspension is unwarranted and the suspension order was challenged on the following grounds: a. The second respondent has no jurisdiction to direct the third respondent to suspend the petitioner as per Section 37 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30/87). b. The Executive Officer, who is competent to suspend the petitioner as per Section 37 if the income of temple is more than Rs.10.00 Lakhs. c. That the action of the second respondent in directing the Executive Officers to suspend and the consequential orders of the Executive Officer are mechanical in nature and not basing on independent application of mind and issuing the orders after prima facie finding the truth in the allegation. c. That the action of the second respondent in directing the Executive Officers to suspend and the consequential orders of the Executive Officer are mechanical in nature and not basing on independent application of mind and issuing the orders after prima facie finding the truth in the allegation. d. The Executive Officer who is the competent and disciplinary authority not applied his mind and not verified whether the allegations are proven correct but simply issued the suspension order basing on the radio message and directions of the second respondent. e. It is general principle that the second respondent can only direct the third respondent to take disciplinary action but in the instant case he was directed the Executive Officer to suspend the incumbents which is illegal and arbitrary and cannot be sustained. f. The Executive Officer of the temple who cross checks, verifies and has the power and authority over an institution in the administration and management of the affairs of the temple as per Section 29 of Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1987 instead of taking action against the Executive Officer suspending the innocent employees is unknown to the law that to at the behest of the second respondent is illegal. g. In similar circumstances, a Full Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1789 of 2004 and batch dated 19.03.2008 has held that the Commissioner of Endowments does not have competence or jurisdiction to suspend the temple employees, thereby the order passed by the Executive Officer of the temple without applying his mind placing the petitioner under suspension is contrary to the principle laid down in W.A.No.1789 of 2004 and batch and the judgment of the Apex Court in `State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126 , requested to set aside the same.” 8. During hearing respondents did not file counter, but placed on record written instructions along with material collected by ACB received by Radio Message to substantiate the case of the respondents while contending that there is material against this petitioner about misappropriation of the property of the temple and requested to dismiss the petition. 9. During hearing respondents did not file counter, but placed on record written instructions along with material collected by ACB received by Radio Message to substantiate the case of the respondents while contending that there is material against this petitioner about misappropriation of the property of the temple and requested to dismiss the petition. 9. During hearing, Sri D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, mainly demonstrated that the order was passed in a routine manner without applying his mind by respondent No.3 and thereby, order is invalid placing reliance on Bimal Kumar Mohanty’s case (supra 1) and requested to pass appropriate orders. 10. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments opposed the writ petition on the ground that there is prima facie material against this petitioner and the order was passed by third respondent only on the direction of the second respondent-Commissioner by applying his mind not in a routine manner and requested to dismiss the petition. 11. Undoubtedly, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the impugned order on the ground that he indulged in misappropriation of temple property i.e., sarees section while discharging his duties as an employee. As the petitioner was in-charge of the sarees section, he allegedly misappropriated sarees and committed certain irregularities pointed out in the writ petition stated above. 12. It is a most unfortunate situation prevailing in the third respondent-Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Devasthanam and the allegations made against this petitioner are two Pattu Sarees were not found in Sarees Godown worth Rs.7000/-and Rs.3500/-and on verification of Pattu Sarees on Barcode scanner, found two sarees of Rs.15000/-and Rs.2500/-the bar cod`ing was not matched. One of the contentions of the petitioner is that failure to supervise the affairs of the temple does not constitute misconduct. 13. According to Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964; (1) Every Government employee shall be devoted to his duty and shall maintain absolute integrity, discipline, impartiality and a sense of propriety. (2) No Government employee shall behave in a manner which is unbecoming of such employee or derogatory to the prestige of Government. (3) No Government employee shall act in a manner which will place his official position under any kind of embarrassment. (2) No Government employee shall behave in a manner which is unbecoming of such employee or derogatory to the prestige of Government. (3) No Government employee shall act in a manner which will place his official position under any kind of embarrassment. (4) No Government employee shall, in the performance of his official duties or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgement except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior, and shall, where he is acting under such direction, obtain the direction in writing, wherever practicable, and where it is not practicable to obtain the direction in writing, shall obtain written confirmation of the direction as soon thereafter as possible. It shall be incumbent on such official superior to confirm in writing the oral directions given by him, and in any event, he shall not refuse such written confirmation where a request is made by the Government employee to whom such direction was given. Explanation:-Nothing in sub-rule (4) shall be construed as empowering a Government employee to evade his responsibilities by seeking instructions from, or approval of, an official superior where such instructions are not necessary under the scheme of distribution of powers and responsibilities. [(5) Every Government servant holding a superior post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all government servants for the time being under his control and authority. Explanation: -A Government servant who habitually fails to perform the task assigned to him within the time set for the purpose and with the quality of performance expected of him shall be deemed to be lacking in devotion to duty.] [(6) Prohibition regarding employment of children below 14 years of age : -No member of the service shall employ to work any child below the age of 14 years.] 13. A Government employee is expected to display devotion to duty, devotion to duty implies due care on the part of the employee in the performance of the work assigned to him. 14. In Union of India v. J. Ahmed (referred supra), the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the scope of the expression “devotion to duty” and has observed as follows: ‘The expression 'devotion to duty' appears to have been used as something opposed to indifference to duty or easy-going or light-hearted approach to duty. 14. In Union of India v. J. Ahmed (referred supra), the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the scope of the expression “devotion to duty” and has observed as follows: ‘The expression 'devotion to duty' appears to have been used as something opposed to indifference to duty or easy-going or light-hearted approach to duty. If rule 3 were the only rule in the Conduct Rules it would have been rather difficult to ascertain what constitutes misconduct in a given situation. But rules 4 to 18 of the Conduct Rules prescribe code of conduct for members of service and it can safely stated that an act or omission contrary to or in breach of prescribed rules of conduct would constitute misconduct for disciplinary proceedings. This code of conduct being not exhaustive it would not be prudent to say that only that act or omission would constitute misconduct for the purpose of Discipline and Appeal Rules which is contrary to the various provisions in the Conduct Rules. The inhibitions in the Conduct Rules clearly provide that an act or omission contrary thereto as to run counter to the expected code of conduct would certainly constitute misconduct. Some other act or omission may as well constitute misconduct. Allegations in the various charges do not specify any act or omission in derogation of or contrary to Conduct Rules save the general rule 3 prescribing devotion to duty. It is, however, difficult to believe that lack of efficiency, failure to attain the highest standard of administrative ability while holding a high post would themselves constitute misconduct. If it is so, every officer rated average would be guilty of misconduct. Charges in this case as stated earlier clearly indicate lack of efficiency, lack of foresight and indecisiveness as serious lapses on the part of the respondent. These deficiencies in personal character of personal ability would not constitute misconduct for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings.” 15. In view of the law laid by the Apex Court in the judgement referred supra, failure to devote to duty constitutes misconduct. 16. Turning to the present case, failure to supervise the Sarees Section of temple constitutes misconduct prima facie. Having exclusive control over the sarees in the godown of the temple, to supervise the affairs of the temple which constitutes failure to devotion to duty. 16. Turning to the present case, failure to supervise the Sarees Section of temple constitutes misconduct prima facie. Having exclusive control over the sarees in the godown of the temple, to supervise the affairs of the temple which constitutes failure to devotion to duty. Thus, the petitioner failed to devote to duty and thereby it attracts misconduct as defined under Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 prima facie. The contention of the petitioner that lack of supervision does not amount to misconduct is hereby rejected, in view of the law referred above. However, this finding is only for limited purpose of deciding the issue and the enquiry officer, if any, appointed for conducting enquiry against this petitioner shall conduct enquiry uninfluenced by the observation(s) or finding(s) recorded herein above and shall decide the misconduct of this petitioner independently. 17. An order of interim suspension can be passed against the employee while an inquiry/investigation is pending against him Suspending an officer, and thereby disabling him from performing the duties of his office on the basis that the contract is subsisting, is always an implied term in every contract of service. When an officer is suspended in this sense it means that the Government merely issues a direction to the officer that so long as the contract is subsisting and till the time, the officer is legally dismissed he must not do anything in the discharge of the duties of his office. In other words, the employer is regarded as issuing an order to the employee which, because the contract is subsisting, the employee must obey. Where the power to suspend is provided for either in the contract of employment or in the statute or the rules framed thereunder, the order of suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending the relationship of master and servant with the consequence that the servant is not bound to render service and the master is not bound to pay his full salary and allowances. 18. If the order of suspension is a valid order, it has suspended the contract of service and the government servant is entitled to receive only such subsistence allowance as might be payable under the rules and regulations governing his terms and conditions of service. 18. If the order of suspension is a valid order, it has suspended the contract of service and the government servant is entitled to receive only such subsistence allowance as might be payable under the rules and regulations governing his terms and conditions of service. As an employer can suspend an employee pending an inquiry into his conduct, the only question that can arise on such suspension will relate to the payment during the period of such suspension. If there is a provision in the Rules providing for the scale of payment during suspension, the payment would be in accordance therewith. On general principles, therefore, the authority entitled to appoint a public servant would be entitled to suspend him pending a departmental inquiry into his conduct or pending a criminal proceeding, which may eventually result in a departmental inquiry against him. 19. An order of suspension must be a step in aid to the ultimate result of the investigation or inquiry. The authority should also keep in mind the public interest, the impact of the delinquent’s continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge. The importance and necessity of proper disciplinary action being taken against government servants for inefficiency, dishonesty or other suitable reasons, cannot be over emphasized. While such action may be against the immediate interest of the government servant, yet it is absolutely necessary in the interests of the general public for serving whose interests the government machinery exists and functions. Suspension of a government servant pending an enquiry is a necessary part of the procedure for taking disciplinary action against him. (Khem Chand v. Union of India AIR 1963 SC 687 ). 20. Ordinarily, a government servant is placed under suspension to restrain him from availing the further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to scuttle the inquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or to impede the progress of the investigation or inquiry, etc. It would also remove the impression, among members of the service that dereliction of duty would pay. When serious allegations of misconduct are imputed against a member of a service, normally it would not be desirable to allow him to continue in the post where he is functioning. It would also remove the impression, among members of the service that dereliction of duty would pay. When serious allegations of misconduct are imputed against a member of a service, normally it would not be desirable to allow him to continue in the post where he is functioning. The government may rightly take the view that an officer, against whom serious imputations are made, should not be allowed to function anywhere before the matter has been finally set at rest after proper scrutiny and holding of departmental proceedings. The purpose of suspension is generally to facilitate a departmental enquiry and to ensure that, while such enquiry is going on-it may relate to serious lapses on the part of a public servant-, he is not in a position to misuse his authority in the same way in which he might have been charged to have done so in the enquiry. 21. The effect on public interest, due to the employee’s continuation in office, is also a relevant and determining factor. Suspension is a device to keep the delinquent out of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceedings unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in the aid of disciplinary proceedings so that the delinquent may not gain custody or control of papers or take any advantage of his position. At this stage, it is not desirable for the court to find out as to which version is true when there are claims and counterclaims on factual issues. No conclusion can be arrived at without examining the entire record. It is always advisable to allow disciplinary proceedings to continue unhindered, and the concerned employee kept out of the mischiefs range. If he is exonerated, he would then be entitled to all the benefits from the date of the order of suspension. The usual ground for suspension, pending a criminal proceeding, is that the charge is connected with his position as a government servant or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude. In such a case a public servant may be suspended pending investigation, enquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge. 22. The power of suspension should, however, not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as a vindictive misuse of power. In such a case a public servant may be suspended pending investigation, enquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge. 22. The power of suspension should, however, not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and without any reasonable ground or as a vindictive misuse of power. A suspension order cannot be actuated by mala fides, arbitrariness, or be passed for an ulterior purpose. (Ashok Kumar Aggarwal’s case (referred supra)). An order of suspension should not be passed in a perfunctory or in a routine and casual manner but with due care and caution after taking all factors into account. (Ashok Kumar Aggarwal’s case). It should be made after consideration of the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the nature of the allegations imputed to the delinquent employee. 23. The authority should also take into account all available material as to whether, in a given case, it is advisable to allow the delinquent to continue to perform his duties in the office or his retention in office is likely to hamper or frustrate the inquiry. (Ashok Kumar Aggarwal’s case). Ordinarily, an order of suspension is passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated, and the nature of the evidence placed before it, on application of mind by the disciplinary authority. 24. Whether the employee should or should not continue in office during the period of inquiry is a matter to be assessed by the concerned authority. Ordinarily, the Court should not interfere with orders of suspension unless they are passed mala fide and without there being even prima facie evidence on record connecting the employee with the misconduct in question. The court cannot act as if it is an appellate forum de hors the power of judicial review. The Court or the Tribunal must consider each case on its own facts and no general law or formula of universal application can be laid down in this regard. Each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. The authority should also keep in mind the public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge. 25. The authority should also keep in mind the public interest of the impact of the delinquent's continuance in office while facing departmental inquiry or trial of a criminal charge. 25. Even if the present case is examined based on the law referred above, the Court must be slow in interfering with such suspension orders. When the competent authority recorded its satisfaction based on the material placed before him along with the complaint that itself suffice to place a Government servant under suspension. Though the effect of suspension is serious on the career of the employee but debarring him from discharging his duties temporarily is only to avoid his interference or continuously indulging in such activities prejudicial to the interest of the state. Normally, an appointing authority or disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission. The order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration of the gravity of the misconduct sought to be enquired into or investigated and the nature of evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of mind by the disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would 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. 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. 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. But, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it creates on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. 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. 26. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments referred above, this Court has to examine the facts of the present case. The first requirement is gravity of the charge of misconduct. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has misappropriated property belonging to Devasthanam which is a grave misconduct since such acts are prejudicial to the interest of the State. Therefore, keeping in view of the gravity of the misconduct sought to be enquired into, the petitioner is placed under suspension by the 2nd respondent. 27. The second requirement to place the Government servant under suspension is there must be some evidence before placing a Government servant under suspension. Here in this case, the second respondent concluded that there is prima facie evidence in support of the allegations based on the report of the Anti Corruption Bureau. 27. The second requirement to place the Government servant under suspension is there must be some evidence before placing a Government servant under suspension. Here in this case, the second respondent concluded that there is prima facie evidence in support of the allegations based on the report of the Anti Corruption Bureau. The said report is sufficient to form the basis, prima facie to conclude that petitioner is indulged in the serious financial irregularities prejudicial to the interest of the Temple. 28. After referring to the earlier Judgments in O.P. Gupta v. Union of India (referred supra), where it was held that suspension of an employee was injurious to his interests and must not be continued for an unreasonably long period and, therefore, an order of suspension should not be lightly passed; to K. Sukhendar Reddy v. State of A.P (referred supra) which castigated selective suspension perpetuated indefinitely in circumstances where other persons involved had not been subjected to any scrutiny; and State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan (1998) 4 SCC 154 wherein it was observed that it would be fair to make the assumption of prejudice if there was unexplained delay in the conclusion of proceedings; the Supreme Court, in Ajay Kumar Choudhary’s case, observed that suspension, specially preceding the formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the record, this would render it punitive in naturer and post the drawing up of the Memorandum of Charges, and eventually culminate after even longer delay. 29. All these principles were considered by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Buddana Venkata Murali Krishna v. State Of A.P. 2016 (3) ALT 727 to which I am one of the members of the Division Bench. Therefore, applying the same principle to the present facts of the case, it is difficult to interfere with the impugned order of suspension, keeping in view of the seriousness and gravity of the misconduct contemplated to be enquired into and the material i.e., embezzlement of funds, recording of satisfaction by the State Audit Officer and the Devasthanam, while passing impugned order of suspension of the petitioner is supported by prima facie evidence. 30. 30. The contention of the petitioner is that, as the Executive Officer of the temple passed the order without applying his mind, he cannot pass an order of suspension in a routine manner. But in the present case only on receipt of radio message, a direction was issued by the second respondent to the third respondent to place this petitioner under suspension in view of the serious irregularities attributed to this petitioner. Whether those irregularities are true or not is a question to be decided only after due investigation by ACB. Even according to the allegations made in the writ petition there are some irregularities prima facie. Therefore, placing this petitioner under suspension cannot be said to be a matter of routine and it is based on the material collected by ACB. Therefore, the order is not a matter of routine and it is only in accordance with the rules. The contention of the petitioner before this Court that the order was passed without applying his mind and drawn the attention of this Court to Bimal Kumar Mohanty’s case (supra 1), wherein at para No.13 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “13. It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission, the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending aforesaid action. It would not be as 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. 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. 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. But as stated earlier, each case must be considered depending on the nature of the allegations, gravity of the situation and the indelible impact it create on the service for the continuance of the delinquent employee in service pending inquiry or contemplated inquiry or investigation. 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.” 31. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the authorities have to apply their mind and cannot pass routine orders of suspension, but here they applied their mind and prima facie satisfied that there is material against this petitioner and continuation of this petitioner in the office may amount to permitting him to indulge in further activities and his continuation is against the public interest. Therefore, respondent No.3 rightly placed this petitioner under suspension and the order passed by the second respondent cannot be interfered with by this Court at this stage since jurisdiction of the High Court is limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India warranting interference in the orders of suspension. 32. So far as power of respondent No.3 is concerned, he independently exercised his power to place this petitioner under suspension but basing on the material collected by ACB during investigation. 32. So far as power of respondent No.3 is concerned, he independently exercised his power to place this petitioner under suspension but basing on the material collected by ACB during investigation. As the second respondent issued a direction to place this petitioner under suspension, the order was passed by the third respondent. Hence, on the ground of incompetency of second respondent, the order cannot be set aside, since the order was passed by the competent officer. Therefore, I find no illegality warranting interference of this Court in the order of suspension passed against this petitioner and consequently, the writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. 33. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to this petitioner to make a representation along with material, if any, available to the third respondent to disprove the allegations made against him. On making such representation, the third respondent is directed to pass an appropriate order reviewing the earlier order within four (4) weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. 34. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.