Back
1986 Supreme(Kar) 57
Karnataka High Court
Judges : Doddakale Gowda
MOHAMMAD VAZEER AHMED - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
W. P. 1705 Of 1986
Decided On : 01/30/1986
Advocates Appeared :
H.SUBRAHMANYA JOIS, K.Sridhar
Interpretation of Suspension Rules under the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules
Headnote:
Suspension Order - Police Officer - Interpretation of Suspension Rules
Fact of the Case:
The government sanctioned the prosecution of the petitioner, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, for alleged offences. The petitioner was then suspended based on the proposal by the Director General and Inspector General of Police.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the contention that the suspension order was without jurisdiction, stating that the order fell within the purview of the Suspension Rules.
Issues: Interpretation of Suspension Rules under the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension order was justified under Clause (b) of Rule 5, which allows for suspension when the commission of an offence is under investigation or on trial.
Final Decision: The writ petition was rejected, upholding the validity of the suspension order.
( 1 ) GOVERNMENT has accorded sanction under Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 to prosecute petitioner for alleged offences under Sections 302, 305, 342 and 201 of Indian Penal code, said to have been committed while he was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, madhugir. Thereafter, on proposal made by Director General and Inspector General of Police, petitioner has been kept under suspension as per impugned order dated 13-1-1986.
( 2 ) CONTENTION of Sri H. Subramanya Jois, learned counsel for petitioner, is that impugned suspension order is not due to contemplated departmental enquiry or pending of an enquiry, hence will not fall within the purview of Clause (a) of Rule 5 of the Karnataka State police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules. Government can pass an order of suspension when the commission of an offence is under investigation or on trial, if any, only under Clause (b) of Rule 5. His submission is that in the instant case, investigation is over and trial is yet to commence and under those circumstances, Clause (b) is also not attracted, hence impugned order of suspension is without jurisdiction.
( 3 ) UNDISPUTEDLY, Police have filed neither 'a', 'b', nor 'c' sheet. The fact that order is preceded by an order under Section 170 of the Police Act itself, prima facie, indicates that steps are being taken to file charge sheet. Till Police submits a report in one form or the other, it is not possible to accept the plea that investigation is over and during the interregnum. e. , period that falls in between completion of investigation and commencement of trial, is not covered under Clause (b) so as to exercise power of keeping an officer under suspension. Clause (b) of Rule 5 is comprehensive enough to cover such period/s also.
( 4 ) HENCE, I find no merit. Writ Petition is rejected. r
