Judgment

MITTER, J.:- The question in this appeal is, whether the order of suspension passed on the respondent on July 31, 1964 was properly struck down by the Patna High Court

2. The facts are as follows: The respondent is a member of the Indian Police Service appointed on 25th January, 1957 and at the material time he was holding the substantive rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in Bihar. In June 1962 he was posted at Ranchi. He was transferred to Patna and appointed as Special Officer, Political, General and Transport Department on July 23, 1964. The order of which the validity is in question ran as follows :

"Whereas serious allegations of corruption and malpractices have been made against Shri T. N. Ghosh, I. P., Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Ranchi;And whereas the said Shri T. N. Ghosh is also reported to have contravened certain provisions of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules. 1954;

And whereas the enquiries made by the Government of Bihar into these allegations have revealed that there is a prima facie case made out against him.

And whereas disciplinary proceedings in respect of these matters are contemplated against the said Shri T. N. Ghosh;

And whereas the Government of India, after carefully considering the available material and having regard to the nature of the charges and circumstances of the case, are satisfied that it is necessary and desirable to place the said Shri T. N. Ghosh under suspension.

Now, therefore, the (government of India hereby place the said Shri T. N. Ghosh, under suspension with immediate effect, until further orders, and direct that the said Shri T. N. Ghosh shall during the period of suspension be paid such subsistence allowance as is admissible under the rules.

By order and in the name of the President of India.

Sd/- K. Sivaraj

Deputy Secretary to the Government of India."

The respondent addressed a memorial to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs on 24th August 1964 complaining against the above order on the ground that it was not sanctioned by the Rules i. e., All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1954. In particular his grievance was that as there were only allegations against him which had not crystallised into charges an order of suspension could not be made before departmental proceedings were actually started and while they were merely contemplated. He also asked for communication of the nature of the departmental proceedings which had been started against him within 14 days with a request that the order of suspension be withdrawn in default thereof. It appears that there was no response to this. The respondent filed his writ petition on September 14, 1964 praying for the quashing of the order particularly on the above grounds raised in his memorandum.

3. A counter-affidavit to the petition was filed on behalf of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar who was the third respondent in the petition. The averments in the said affidavit were that a report had been made to the Central Government against the petitioner on July 6, 1964 and having regard to the activities of the petitioner it had become necessary to remove him from the field of activities and as such he had been transferred to Patna after being relieved of his post on July 13, 1964. It was said further that even before the receipt of the suspension order the petitioner had been actually questioned by S. P. Verma, the then Inspector-General of Police, Bihar as early as February 8, 1964 apprising the petitioner that his activities had attracted the attention of Government. It was admitted that departmental enquiry and investigation into the conduct of the petitioner were still going on and as such charges had not been framed against him. Finally, it was said that the order was not by way of punishment and had been passed pending departmental enquiry into his conduct.

4. Another counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the Government of India and the Deputy Secretary to t