Judgment

RAY, J. : This appeal by certificate from the judgment of the High Court at Delhi challenged the order dated 5th July, 1968 placing the appellant under suspension.

2. The appellant canvassed two grounds: first, that the order of suspension was passed on a report which was made mala fide, and, therefore, the order of suspension was bad; secondly, the order of suspension was made under sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the All India Service (Appeal and Discipline) Rules, 1955, and is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

3. The appellant was appointed to the Indian Police Service in the year 1935. He was posted as Inspector General of Police of the State of Andhra Pradesh, on 1st November, 1956. He was confirmed as Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh in the year 1957. On 14th May, 1966, he reached the age of 55 years. He, however, continued to work as Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh up to 1st August, 1967. He was then posted as Special Inspector General of Police for the revision of Police Standing Orders.

4. Some time in the year 1967 the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh ordered that the Chief Secretary should make an enquiry with regard to certain allegations against the appellant. The Chief Secretary recommended that the Vigilance Commissioner in the State of Andhra Pradesh might be requested to look into the matter. The Vigilance Commissioner advised that the enquiry should be conducted by an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Central Bureau of Investigation thereafter made an enquiry. The appellant was given allegations to answer. The appellant submitted explanation and was examined. The Central Bureau of Investigation made a report on the enquiry.

5. On 11th July, 1968 the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs made an order placing the appellant under suspension. The appellant alleged as follows. The Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh was inimical and hostile to the appellant since the time of the General Elections in the year 1967. The investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation was conducted by persons who were hostile to the appellant. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, should not have relied on the report because the initiation and the conduct of the enquiry were motivated mala fide on the part of the Chief Minister of the State and other persons.

6. The other contention of the appellant was that under sub-rule (1) of R. 7 of the All India Service (Appeal and Discipline) Rules, 1955 the order of suspension could be made only if disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the Government satisfied that there should be an order and in the present case the order did not satisfy the provisions of the rule, and, therefore, the order is bad.

7. The pre-eminent question in this appeal is whether the order of suspension is in infraction of Rule 7. Rule 7 is as follows:-

"(1) having regard to the nature of the charges and the circumstances in any case the Government which initiates any disciplinary proceeding is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place under suspension the member of the Service against whom such proceedings are started that Government may-

(a) if the member of the Service is serving under it pass an order placing him under suspension, or

(b) if the member of the Service is serving another Government, request that Government to place him under suspension, pending the conclusion of the inquiry and the passing of the final order in the case:

Provided that in cases where there is a difference of opinion between two State Governments the matter shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision thereon shall be final.

(2) x x x

(3) A member of the Service in respect of, or against whom, an investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending may, at the discretion of the Government under which he is serving, be placed under suspension until the termination of all proceedings relating to that charge, if