SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(All) 377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. R. K. Trivedi, J.
TEJ PAL SINGH - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, P.A.C., AGRA - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 10812 Of 1999
Decided On : 03/24/1999

Advocates Appeared:
P.N.Saxena, V.S.TRIPATHI

An order of suspension can only be passed when there is a full-fledged inquiry and not a preliminary inquiry.

Headnote:

SUSPENSION - U. P. POLICE OFFICERS OF THE SUBORDINATE RANKS (PUNISHMENT AND APPEAL) RULES, 1991 - RULE 17 - PRELIMINARY INQUIRY - ORDER OF SUSPENSION - VALIDITY - An order of suspension can only be passed when there is a full-fledged inquiry and not a preliminary inquiry.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (ASI), was suspended from service for making unwarranted comments against his superior authorities and indulging in dialogue with them, showing disobedience to his superior authorities. A preliminary inquiry was ordered to be held within a week.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the order of suspension was illegal as it was passed at the stage of preliminary inquiry and not after a full-fledged inquiry. The court also held that the respondent No. 2 was not competent to pass the order of suspension as he was not the appointing authority and the power of suspension had not been delegated to him.

Issues: 1. Whether an order of suspension can be passed at the stage of preliminary inquiry? 2. Whether respondent No. 2 was competent to pass the order of suspension?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that an order of suspension can only be passed when there is a full-fledged inquiry and not a preliminary inquiry. The court relied on the Full Bench decision in State of U. P. v. Jai Singh Dixit, which held that the "inquiry" contemplated by Rule 49a of the U. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules or Rule 1a of the U. P. Punishment and Appeal Rules, may be ordered at any stage prior to or after framing of charges, when on objective consideration, the authority concerned is of the view that a formal departmental inquiry under Rules 55 and 55a of the C. C. A. Rules or Rule 5 or 5a of the U. P. Punishment and appeals Rules is expected or such an inquiry is preceding. 2. The court held that respondent No. 2 was not competent to pass the order of suspension as he was not the appointing authority and the power of suspension had not been delegated to him.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders of suspension and the order asking the petitioner to hand over charge.

R. R. K. TRIVEDI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V. C. Tripathi. learned standing counsel. As the petition can be disposed of on a short question of law, learned counsel for parties have agreed that this petition may be decided finally at this stage.

( 2 ) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24. 2. 1999 by which petitioner has been suspended from the post of A. S. I. (M) for the allegations mentioned in the order that he made unwarranted comments against superior authorities and indulged in dialogue with them and this way had shown disobedience to his superior authorities. At the end of the order in para 3, Sher Singh, Assistant Commandant had been directed to hold a preliminary inquiry and submit a report within a week.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Rule 17 of U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the rules), the order of suspension can be passed when there is full-fledged inquiry and not a preliminary inquiry, the object of which is to collect material for prima facie satisfaction of the disciplinary authority to form an opinion whether full-fledged inquiry should be initiated against the delinquent officer and whether an order of suspension may be passed. Learned counsel has submitted that from a conjoint reading of Rules 5, 13 and 14 also, it is clear that full-fledged inquiry is required only in cases of major punishment. Under Rule 14 (2), minor punishments are awarded only after informing the police officer in writing about the action proposed to be taken. Major punishment according to Rule 4 are ; dismissal from service, removal from service, reduction in rank including reduction to a lower-scale or to a lower stage in a time scale. Learned counsel has submitted that respondent No. 2 has illegally passed this order under Rule 17 at the stage of preliminary inquiry and the order suffers from manifest error of law. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance in case of State of U. P. v. Jai Singh Dixit. 1974 alj 862 (FB) ; Shri A. G. Benjamin v. Union of India (Supreme Court Service Rulings Vol. 13, p. 328 and RE. Rev. B. P. Sugandhar Bishop in Medak v. Smt. D. Dorothy Dayasheela Ebeneser, jt 1996 (6) SC 221.

( 4 ) IT has also been submitted that respondent No. 2 was not competent in law to pass the order of suspension against the petitioner as he is not the appointing authority and the power of suspension has not been delegated to him by any order.

( 5 ) LEARNED standing counsel, on the other hand, submitted that respondent No. 2 instead of using the words that inquiry is contemplated, has mentioned Rule 17 in the order which satisfies the requirement. It has also been submitted that the order also contains a direction to hold preliminary inquiry which also establishes that a full-fledged inquiry against the petitioner is contemplated. Learned standing counsel has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are of insubordination which cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force and action is justified against him. The order does not suffer from any error of law.


( 6 ) I have thoroughly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. There is no doubt that words inquiry and preliminary inquiry are used for denoting different stages of an action against an employee. Preliminary inquiry is normally resorted to by the disciplinary authority to collect evidence and material for forming opinion whether a full-fledged disciplinary inquiry may be initiated against the delinquent employee or not. In case of State of U. P. v. Jai singh Dixit (supra), a Full Bench of five Judges of this Court while considering the provisions of rule 49a of the Rules, held as under : "the inquiry contemplated by Rule 49a cannot have reference to an informal preliminary inquiry or a fact-finding inquiry preceding the actual disciplinary procee












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top