Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha and . JJ.
Sarda Nandan Pathak
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1390 of 1988 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 30, 1988
SUSPENSION OF POLICE OFFICERS - FACTUAL BASIS - REQUIREMENT OF PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY - INTERPRETATION OF RULES 840(A) AND 49-A OF THE BIHAR POLICE MANUAL AND CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1930 - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, police officers attached to Kahalgaon Police Station, were placed under suspension by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Bhagalpur, for alleged dereliction of duties in connection with an incident of violence and arson. The petitioners challenged the suspension order, contending that there was no factual basis for the suspension, that the order did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 840(a) of the Bihar Police Manual or Rule 49-A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, and that no preliminary enquiry was conducted before passing the suspension order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a factual basis for the suspension order, as the petitioners were present at the scene of the incident and failed to take any steps to prevent the violence and arson. The court also found that the order satisfied the requirements of Rule 49-A(1) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, which allows for the suspension of an employee when a departmental proceeding is contemplated or pending. The court further held that it was not necessary for the authorities to conduct a preliminary enquiry before passing the suspension order.
Issues: 1. Whether there was a factual basis for the suspension order? 2. Whether the suspension order satisfied the requirements of Rule 840(a) of the Bihar Police Manual or Rule 49-A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930? 3. Whether it was necessary for the authorities to conduct a preliminary enquiry before passing the suspension order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was a factual basis for the suspension order, as the petitioners were present at the scene of the incident and failed to take any steps to prevent the violence and arson. The court relied on the statements of witnesses and the supervision note of the Superintendent of Police to conclude that there was a prima facie case against the petitioners. 2. The court held that the suspension order satisfied the requirements of Rule 49-A(1) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, which allows for the suspension of an employee when a departmental proceeding is contemplated or pending. The court noted that the order stated that a departmental proceeding would be initiated against the petitioners, and that this was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the rule. 3. The court held that it was not necessary for the authorities to conduct a preliminary enquiry before passing the suspension order. The court relied on the fact that the suspension order was based on sufficient materials and that the concerned authority had come to a decision relating to the gravity of the allegations on the basis thereof.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, but directed the authorities to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioners within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
S. B. Sinha, J.
1. In this writ petition the petitioners party for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing an order dated 10-2-1988 issued under the signature of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range. Bhagalpur being Eastern Range Order No.26 of 1988 whereby and whereunder the petitioners were placed under suspension.
2. Shorn of all unnecessary details, the fact of the matter is as follows :-
"the petitioners are police officer and ate attached to Kahalgaon Police station. On 22-9-1987 an incident occured at Ekchari. In the said incident an armed mob surrounded the house of one Durga singh and Debi Singh and throwing missiles and brickbats at their houses. Three dead bodies were found lying in frout of their houses and the said houses were also set on fire by the irate mob.
3 According to the petitioners, they did their best to control the situation. The petitioners have further contended that one D. D. Goswami, Assistant sub-Inspector of Police also did his best to control the situation. According to the petitioners, immediately thereafter higher police officers including the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police came on the spot and took complete charge of the situation.
4. In relation to the aforementioned incident the Superintendent of Police examined several witnesses on 27-9-1987 and allegedly came to the conclusion that one Sri D. D. Goswami was prima facie guilty for the said incident. The said sri D. D. Goswami was, therefore, directed to be placed under suspension by reason of orders as contained in Annexures 5 and 6 to the writ petition.
5. On 22-9-1987 the Deputy Inspector General of Police also inspected the place of occurrence According to the petitioners, although the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate did not find any prima facie case against the petitioners and they did not hold the petitioners responsible for the said incident ; by the impugned order dated 10th of February, 1988 and as contained in Annexure 8 to the writ petition, the Deputy Inspector General of Police placed the petitioners under suspension. The petitioners have stated that the grounds on which the said order of suspension was passed are wholly non-existent.
6. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3. In the said counter affidavit it has been stated that the deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, has directed initiation of a departmental proceeding as against the petitioners and for that reason they have been placed under suspension. It has further been contended in the said counter affidavit that the Deputy inspector General of Police himself had made supervision relating to the investigation of the cases lodged in connection with the aforementioned incident i. e. Kahalgaon Police Case No.225 of 1987 and 226 of 1987 and he took into consideration the statements of various witnesses as noted in the case diary as also the supervision note of Superintendent of Police. It has further contended that the Deputy Inspector General of Police also took into consideration the report of the Additional Superintendent of Police, c. I. D. , Bhagalpur. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that the case of the petitioner and the aforementioned Sri D, D. Goswami stand on the same footing. It has further been averred that four persons were killed and loot and arson had also taken place in presence of the armed force including the petitioners. It is the categorical stand of the respondents that and prima facie case has been found for initiation of a proceeding against the petitioner, inter alia, on the charge of dereliction of duties. It has further been stated in connection with the afore-mentioned case that the statements of the petitioners and the afore-mentioned Sri D. D. Goswami were taken which were prima facie found unsatisfactory.
7. Mr. Abhay Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has raised three content
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
