Back
High Court Of Delhi
R.K.GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 1089 of 1969
Decided On : 03/04/1971
CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL) RULES, 1965 - RULE 10(1)(B) - SUSPENSION - INVESTIGATION - PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY - DISTINCTION - MALA FIDE - BURDEN OF PROOF.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Development Officer in the Directorate General of Technical Development, was placed under suspension by the President of India on the ground that a case against him was under investigation. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension on the grounds that it was mala fide and that it was not authorized by rule 10(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order of suspension was not mala fide. However, it held that the preliminary enquiry registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation on May 16, 1969, against the petitioner could not be equated to an investigation within the meaning of rule 10(1)(b) of the Rules. The court held that the condition precedent to the exercise of the power of suspension was, therefore, lacking and quashed the order of suspension.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of suspension was mala fide? 2. Whether the preliminary enquiry registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation on May 16, 1969, against the petitioner could be equated to an investigation within the meaning of rule 10(1)(b) of the Rules?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order of suspension was not mala fide. The court found that the Secretary of the Ministry had recommended the petitioner's suspension on the basis of a letter from an Upper Division Clerk alleging that the petitioner had obtained a statement from him which would be contrary to the statement made by him to respondent No. 3 about missing pages of a file. The court held that it was possible that the letter of respondent No. 3 dated August 18, 1969 may also have been in the mind of the Secretary but even so, it could not be said that this letter alone was the cause of the Secretary's recommendation for suspension. The court held that it could not, therefore, be said that the suspension of the petitioner was at the instance of respondent No. 3. 2. The court held that the preliminary enquiry registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation on May 16, 1969, against the petitioner could not be equated to an investigation within the meaning of rule 10(1)(b) of the Rules. The court held that the investigation there contemplated is an investigation pursuant to a first information report registered under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that the pharaseology employed in the registration of the preliminary enquiry and in the registration of a regular case for investigation reinforces this conclusion.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and ordered the issue of a writ to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 directing them to cancel, rescind or withdraw the impugned order of suspension dated August 21, 1969 and to desist from enforcing the same.
( 1 ) THE petitioner, R. K. Gupta, challenges the order dated August 21, 1969 passed by the President of India placing him under suspension with immediate effect from the aforesaid date. The order has placed a further resctriction on the petitioner by prohibiting him from leaving New Delhi which has been specified as his headquarters without the previous permission of Mr. K. Rajaram who has signed the order as the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India in. the Ministry of Industrial Development, Internal Trade and Company Affairs (Department of Industrial Development ).
( 2 ) THE petitioner was functioning, at the time of his suspension, as a Development Officer in the Directorate General of Technical Development. At the relevant time the Director Genral of Technical Development was Dr. B. D. Kalelkar. The Union of India; the aforesaid Mr. K. Raja Ram and Dr. B. D. Kalelkar are respondents Nos. 1 to 3, respectively.
( 3 ) THE order of suspension is challenged on the ground that it was passed mala fide, the allegations of mala fide being mainly against respondent No. 3, and on the ground that it was not authorised by rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. It may be stated that according to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, the aforesaid order was passed under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 10 of the said Rules. The order is in these terms :-
"no. 14/12/69-Vij Government of India Ministry of Industrial Development, Internal Trade and Co. Affairs (Dept. of Industrial Development ). New Delhi, the 21st August, 1969. ORDER Whereas a case against Shri R. K. Gupta, Development Officer, Directorate General of Technical Development, is under investigation. Now, therefore, the President, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, hereby places the said Shri R. K, Gupta under suspension, with immediate effect. It is further ordered that during the period that this order shall remain in force the headquarters of Shri R. K. Gupta, Development Officer, Directorate General of Technical Development, shall be New Delhi and the said Shri R, K. Gupta shall not leave the said headquarters without obtaining the previous permission of the undersigned. By order and in the name of the President. sd/- (K. RAJA RAM) Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India Copy to Shri R. K, Gupta, Development Officer, D. G. T. D. , New Delhi, Orders regarding his subsistance allowance will be issued separately. sd/- K. RAJA RAM. "
( 4 ) THE reason for the suspencion order as appearing on its face is that a case against the petitioner was under investigation but the details and the nature of the case or the investigating agency are not disclosed. Nor is it stated that the investigation is in respect of a criminal offence. The relevant part of rule 10 of the said Rules is as under :-
"10 (1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President by general or special order, may place a government servant under suspension: (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation enquiry or trial. "
( 5 ) IT is clear that the order of suspension can be justified under clause (b) only if a case in respect of any criminal offence against the Government servant concerned was under investigation, enquiry or trial. The respondents rely upon the pendency of an investigation.
( 6 ) THE petitioner was selected by the Union Public Service Commission and was appointed on March 31, 1964, as a Development Officer in the Ministry of Industrial Development, Internal Trade and Company Affairs, hereinafter referred to as "the Ministry", and started functioning as such in one of its Departments known as the Directorate General of Technical Development. The petitioner alle
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
