Back
1965 Supreme(Pat) 42
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.C.Misra and Tarkeshwar Nath JJ.
Tarak Nath Ghosh
Versus
Government Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 1207 of 1964 ;
Decided On : MARCH 31, 1965
The pleasure of the President under Article 310 of the Constitution of India has to be exercised according to the procedure laid down by the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - ARTICLES 309, 310 - CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1957 - RULE 7 - ALL INDIA SERVICES (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) RULES, 1957 - RULE 7 - SUSPENSION OF A MEMBER OF ALL INDIA SERVICES - CONDITIONS - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Indian Police Service, was placed under suspension by the Government of India on the ground that certain facts had come to light in regard to his conduct in the discharge of his duties. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension on the ground that it was illegal, whether it was to be considered as an interim measure or one as a punishment, as the conditions of service of the petitioner were governed by Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules in so far as they apply to the members of the All India Services.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the order of suspension against the petitioner was illegal and quashed it. The Court held that the provisions of Rule 7 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1957, which provide for the suspension of a member of All India Services during disciplinary proceedings, were mandatory and had not been complied with in the present case. The Court further held that the pleasure of the President under Article 310 of the Constitution of India had to be exercised according to the procedure laid down by the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of suspension against the petitioner was illegal? 2. Whether the provisions of Rule 7 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1957, were mandatory? 3. Whether the pleasure of the President under Article 310 of the Constitution of India had to be exercised according to the procedure laid down by the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the order of suspension against the petitioner was illegal because it was passed before any disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him, in violation of the provisions of Rule 7 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1957. 2. The Court held that the provisions of Rule 7 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1957, were mandatory and had to be complied with before a member of All India Services could be suspended. 3. The Court held that the pleasure of the President under Article 310 of the Constitution of India had to be exercised according to the procedure laid down by the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the order of suspension passed against the petitioner.
Misra, J.
1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issue of an appropriate writ quashing the order of the Government of India, dated the 31st, July, 1064, annexure A to the petition, and, in the alternative, for directing the opposite party to disclose the charges against the petitioner available to the opposite party on the 31st July, 1964, and the nature of the departmental proceeding against him on the same date. The petitioner is a member of the Indian Police Service having been recruited as a result of a competitive examination held in the year 1956. His appointment was made on the 26th of January, 1957. His case is that he served in various capacities in Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Bihar, when he was posted as Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Southern Range, Ranchi, in this State substantively in June 1962. On the 23rd of July, 1964, however he received an order of transfer to Patna and was posted as Special Officer, Political, General and Transport Department (Transport Branch), Patna. While he was serving in that capacity, he received a communication from the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, dated the 31st of July, 1964, placing him under suspension with immediate effect. On receipt of the communication, the petitioner requested the Government to supply him with a copy of any report which might have been submitted against him by any enquiring officer such as the Inspector-General of Police, which might have led to the order of suspension contained in the aforesaid letter. The petitioners request was made by letter dated the 17th August, 1964. No reply was, however, received by the petitioner.
2. On the 24th of August, 1964, the petitioner addressed a petition to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, through the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar, stating that either the charges upon which the Government felt satisfied that the order of suspension should be passed and the nature of the departmental proceeding started against him should be disclosed to him or the order of suspension should be withdrawn. An advance copy of this letter was sent to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, which was received there on the 26th August, 1964. The petitioner has stated that no reply was received so far to that petition as well. In the circumstances, the petitioner made an application for permission to proceed on leave available to him, but his prayer for leave was also refused. The petitioner was on transfer posted as Special Officer in the transport branch of the Political, General and Transport Department which has no concern with the police department and was staying at the Circuit House at Patna and in spite of that the order of suspension was continued against him. Accordingly, the petitioner finding himself without any remedy, and being aggrieved by the order of suspension, moved this Court for a writ in terms stated above.
3. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar is to the effect that certain facts had come to light in regard to the conduct of the petitioner in the discharge of his duties on the 6th of July, 1964, which were brought to the notice of the Central Government. It was on foot of that information that the Central Government passed the order of suspension on the 31st July, 1964. The reason why he was transferred to Patna in the Transport Department was that his continuance as the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Southern Range, Ranchi, was considered as inexpedient and prejudicial to public interest on account of the activities of the petitioner. As to the allegation in the petition that the petitioner had no information about any departmental enquiry, it has been stated in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was questioned by Sri S. P. Verma, Inspector-General of Police, Bihar,
