ARJUN PRASAD SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order of suspension, as contained in Annexures 'a', 'b' and 'd' to the petition. Again on June 29, 1988, when the writ application was moved, the respondents issued another order being annexure 'x' to the application for further orders. The said order reads thus:

(2.) MR. Samaddar placed reliance on Rule 139. 1 of the Railwav Pretection Force Rules, 1987 which reads thus:

(3.) ON a careful consideration of Rule 135 and Rule 139. 1 of the said Rules, I am of the view, that the order of suspension could be extended only when the condition precedent to the exercise of power under the proviso to Rule 135 stands fulfilled. The decision of the authority that since the activities of the petitioner were found to- be prejudicial to the interest of the administration, the petitioner would, in the public interest, be continued under suspension till further orders, is wholly de hors the proviso to Rule 135 of the said Rules. "prejudicial to the interest of the administration" cannot be substituted for "prejudicial to the interest and security of the State. " Mr. Chakraborti referred to a very celebrated judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel reported in (1985-II-LLJ-206 ). He placed reliance on paragraph 128 of the said judgment. The said paragraph for the sake of determination of this matter is required to be set out in extenso: