P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, R. A. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 328 of 1988. The appellant herein had invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order of suspension dated 29-12-1987 which was annexed as Annexure A to the special civil application by declaring it as illegal. By the said impugned order the appellant herein was put under suspension from the date of receipt of the said impugned order owing to the fact that an offence has been registered against him in Jamnagar ACB Police Station as Crime No. 4 of 1987 under Sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act while he was working as Police Constable in Police Station? Jamnagar. It is also clear from the record that as early as 12-12-1987 i. e. before passing of the impugned order on 29-12-1987 the appellant was transferred from Jamnagar District to Kutch District for the very same offence alleged above.

( 2 ) THE learned single Judge of this High Court holding that having regard to the allegations made against the appellant herein the order of transfer would not be sufficient to prevent the appellant from committing mischief which is alleged against him held that the order of suspension which has been passed after proper application of mind by the District Superintendent of Police Kutch is valid. It is as against this order the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.

( 3 ) MR. Deshmukh learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the order of suspension cannot stand inasmuch as the same was passed by the in charge District Superintendent of Police whose substantive post is Deputy Superintendent of Police. To substantiate this contention he referred to various provisions of the Bombay Police Act and also the BCSR Rules. Pressing into service the circular issued by the General Administration Department of Government of Gujarat wherein it is stated that in the case of non-gazetted staff suspension should not be resorted to without the prior approval of the Secretary of the Administrative Department the learned Counsel contended that the present suspension did not have the prior approval of the Secretary of the Administrative Department and as such the same is bad. He also pointed out from the circular that such suspension should be periodically reviewed and in the absence of such a review the continuance of suspension becomes illegal.

( 4 ) MR. Deshmukh has also contended that as per Circular Memorandum dated 1-7-1976 all officers who are directed to hold additional charge should not exercise the powers including the disciplinary powers vested under the Bombay Police Act 1951 to District Superintendent of Police. It is the further say of Mr. Deshmukh that any power exercised under the Act is subject to the superintendence and control of the State Government as per Sec. 4 of the Bombay Police Act. In view of this Sec. 4 Mr. Deshmukh says that the words holds charge and the word succeeds occurring in Sec. 157a of the Bombay Police Act must be in pursuance of the order made by the State Government and will not cover cases where such holding of charge and succeeding is by automatice process. Hence according to the learned Counsel that in the absence of any such notification or order of the State Government making Mr. A. R. Rehwar who has passed the impugned order as the District Superintendent of Police the said Mr. A. R. Rehwar who is in charge of District Superintendent of Police cannot act under Sec. 1574 of the Act since be has no authority of law to do so. Mr. Deshmukh further submitted that under Sec. 8 of the Bombay Police Act certain powers have been delegated to she District Superintendent of Police by the State Government and as per the principle that delegatee cannot further delegate the powers of District Superintendent of Police cannot be delegated to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document