HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 29213 of 2009 Date: 31.12.2009 Between: Sashikant Goshal, Visakhapatnam. … Petitioner And The Deputy Commandant, Visakhapatnam and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 29213 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner, who is working as constable in CISF filed this writ petition seeking a declaration that the 1st respondent’s order dated 02.10.2009 placing him under suspension in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 33(1) (a) of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (for short ‘the Rules’) is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. Admittedly, Crime No.214 of 2009 was registered against the petitioner on 23.09.2009 on the file of Malkapuram Police for the offence punishable under Section 304 (A) IPC. It appears that the petitioner had surrendered before the police on 24.09.2009 and subsequently he was released on bail. It is also not in dispute that on completion of the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed and the further proceedings are pending. As per Rule 33 (1) (a) of the Rules, where a case against the enrolled member of the force in respect of criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial, the authority is competent to place him under suspension. Having regard to the admitted fact that a criminal case against the petitioner is under trial, I am unable to hold that the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity. However, learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon Rule 33(2) of the Rules, vehemently contended that respondents had committed a grave error in placing the petitioner under suspension in view of the fact that the petitioner was subsequently released on bail. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of the Culcutta High Court in SUMAN ROY CHOWDHURY V. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS[1]. The said decision, which was rendered interpreting the provisions of WBSF (CC&A) Rules, 1971, has no application to the facts of this case. As expressed above, the impugned order has rightly been passed in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 33(1) (a) of the Rules and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI,J. Date: 31.12.2009 KLP [1] 2007(3) SLR 809