ORDER : (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) The question for consideration in this petition is whether this Court must opine that the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short, ‘the Tribunal’] has erred in refusing to interfere with the decision dated 22.09.2025 to keep a Station House Officer of a police station under suspension. This Court, at the first instance in W.P.No.360683/2025, was called upon to interfere at the Tribunal’s refusal in Application No.4298/2025 to grant an interim order against the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension, and presently, the Tribunal, by its impugned order dated 06.11.2025, has refused to interfere with the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension. 2. The reason for the third respondent’s decision to keep the petitioner under suspension is in the circumstances, which could be stated concisely thus. 2.1 A head constable, who is assigned the duties of a sentry at the station on 04.09.2025 and goes out of the station premises for a tea break, asserts that he was constrained to take a person [who is referred to as ‘the entrepreneur’] who had travelled from Andhra Pradesh into custody because he was abusive and that on instructions from the petitioner, he has registered a NCR [Non-cognizable Report]. A friend of the entrepreneur approaches the petitioner the next day with a complaint that the head constable who had to be on sentry duty had relieved him of Rs.10,00,000/- [from out of Rs.55,00,000/-]. 2.2 This effort to lodge a complaint did not result in any proceeding, and hence a complaint is lodged with the Assistant Commissioner of Police on 08.09.2025, and as if on cue, the petitioner has called for an explanation from the concerned. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, on receipt of the complaint on 08.09.2025, has filed a report with the fourth respondent who has conducted a preliminary enquiry as contemplated under the Karnataka Police Manual [for short, 'the Manual']. It is based on this report that the third respondent has decided on 22.09.2025 to keep the petitioner under suspension along with others. 3. The Tribunal, recording these circumstances and the rival presentations on the facts, has opined that there is a preliminary enquiry preceding the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension; and that there is no irregularity or illegality in the process of the decision making to keep the petitioner under suspension. 3. The Tribunal, recording these circumstances and the rival presentations on the facts, has opined that there is a preliminary enquiry preceding the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension; and that there is no irregularity or illegality in the process of the decision making to keep the petitioner under suspension. The Tribunal, while referring to the competent authority applying its mind in recording satisfaction that there are sufficient reasons to keep the employees under suspension, has concluded that there is a prima facie case to keep the petitioner under suspension. 4. Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy, the learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri. Dilli Rajan who is on record for the petitioner, emphasizes that [a] when the petitioner received a call in the early morning, he only instructed the caller [the Head Constable] to take action to register a NCR because he was only informed of the circumstances as aforementioned, [b] the reasons as found in the preliminary enquiry are that the petitioner was not diligent in issuing the instructions for sentry duties and that he has instructed a constable who was not the station house officer to register a NCR., [c] an instruction to register a NCR in accordance with the procedure over telephone or the failure of the Sentry to follow instructions cannot be a reason to keep the petitioner under suspension. 5. Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy canvasses, taking this Court through the detailed enquiry report, that even according to the complainant when the petitioner was informed about the grievance, he has interacted not only with complainant/entrepreneur but also with the head constable and that the outcome of the interaction is that the complainant/entrepreneur will grant some time to the Head Constable to return the money, with this constable asserting that he had not relieved the person of any money. 6. Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy argues that the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension should be considered in these circumstances, and that these circumstances do not render themselves to an opinion that there is a prima facie case of the petitioner being a party to any act of relieving the entrepreneur of Rs.10,00,000/-. 6. Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy argues that the decision to keep the petitioner under suspension should be considered in these circumstances, and that these circumstances do not render themselves to an opinion that there is a prima facie case of the petitioner being a party to any act of relieving the entrepreneur of Rs.10,00,000/-. The learned Senior counsel emphasizes, as a matter of further canvas [i] that the third respondent, contrary to the findings in the enquiry report, has opined that the petitioner acting in cohort with the others is responsible for the entrepreneur being relieved of cash and as such there is a complete lack of application of mind in assessing whether the petitioner must be kept under suspension, and [ii] that the Tribunal has overlooked these aspects in refusing to interfere with the third respondent’s decision to keep the petitioner under suspension. 7. Sri. Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that the enquiry report demonstrates not just the lack of diligence in ensuring that proper sentry arrangements are made but also in the petitioner’s failure to take immediate action when it was brought to his notice that a cognizable offence is committed with the allegation that the entrepreneur was relieved from a substantial sum of Rs.10,00,000/- within the police station’s limits. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the preliminary enquiry shows that the petitioner has met with the complainant/the entrepreneur and he is apprised of the complainant relating to the cognizable offence, but the petitioner has taken no action. 8. This Court must refer to Clause 412 of the Manual, which must be read with Clauses 426 to 428 of the manual. The Clause 412 of the Manual reads as under: 412. (i) The purpose in placing an officer under suspension is to keep him away from a position where he can interfere with the conduct of the inquiry or tamper with the documentary or oral evidence in any manner, or, where, having regard to the nature of the charges against him, it is felt that it would be unsafe to continue to vest in him the powers of his post. (ii) In cases of criminal prosecution, the concerned accused Police Officers should ordinarily be suspended. (ii) In cases of criminal prosecution, the concerned accused Police Officers should ordinarily be suspended. (iii) Before placing a Police Officer under suspension, the authority competent to place him under suspension should examine the case whether the default is so serious as to merit suspension. He should also carefully consider whether on the basis of evidence available there is a prima-facie case for dismissal or removal from service or if there is reason to believe that his continuance in active service is likely to cause embarrassment or hamper the inquiry. In other cases, the concerned Police Officer could be transferred to a far-off place, if such a course is necessary in the interest of the inquiry. (iv) The officer who passes an order of suspension of a Police Officer should record his reasons therefore under his signature. (v) The following are the circumstances under which the Police Officer may be placed under suspension (Official Memorandum No. DPAR 13 SDE 85, dated 3 rd July 1985, Pl. see Appendix - XX). (i) Where continuance in office of the Government Servant will prejudice the investigation, trial or any inquiry (i.e., apprehended tampering with witnesses or documents) (ii) Where continuance of the Government Servant is likely to seriously subvert discipline in the office in which the Government Servant is working. (iii) Where a Government Servant is prosecuted for any offence committed in the course of his duty involving moral turpitude. (iv) Corruption, embezzlement or misappropriation of Government money or money of a foreign employer under whom the Government Servant has worked on deputation or otherwise, possession of disproportionate assets, misuse of official powers for personal gain. (v) Serious negligence and dereliction of duty resulting in considerable loss to government and the foreign employer while the Government Servant had worked on deputation. (vi) return to duty after unauthorized absence. (vii) refusal, or deliberate failure, to carry out written orders of superior officers. 9. These provisions show that the purpose of placing an officer under suspension, amongst others, is to keep such officer away from the position where he/she can interfere with the conduct of the enquiry or tamper with documentary/oral evidence, or where having regard to the charges against him, the competent authority is of the view that it would be unsafe to continue to vest in the officer the powers of his post. The circumstances must be weighed to assess whether the continuance of the officer will be prejudicial to the investigation, trial or enquiry and whether the discipline will be seriously subverted if the officer is continued. These are examined as part of a preliminary enquiry as contemplated under Clause 426, and as required under Clause 428 of the Manual, the concerned must after going through the papers of the enquiry, decide whether the officer should be suspended pending an enquiry or prosecution. 10. In the present case, the report filed after the preliminary enquiry is examined, and it is prima facie opined that the petitioner has acted in cohort with the others and with the further opinion that, if the petitioner and the others are continued, the evidence would be disturbed. This Court, without commenting on the merits of the allegations, which must be examined by the competent authority before there could be any observation by a Court, has examined the allegations. The allegations are contained in two parts; (i) what has transpired on the night intervening the 04.09.2025 and 05.09.2025, (ii) the petitioner’s action/inaction between 05.09.2025 and 08.09.2025. The prima facie opinion recorded by the third respondent on these are based on the records at the station and other material, including CCTV footage. 11. If in the nature of these allegations, the concerned after necessary preliminary enquiry have opined that there is a prima facie case for keeping the petitioner under suspension, this Court is not persuaded to say that there is an error either in the third respondent’s decision to keep the petitioner under suspension or in the Tribunal’s order. This Court observes that nothing is brought to this Court’s attention to opine that there is any infraction of the procedure that is contemplated. The decision to keep the petitioner under suspension is subject to inquiry and it must be subject to the Police Karnataka State (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965 [Rules 5 and 6] which has a mechanism to ensure that an officer is not kept under suspension for an indefinite period requiring the State Government’s intervention, if the suspension is to be beyond six months. Hence, answering the question for consideration in the negative, the petition is rejected.