Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1990 DIGILAW 796 (ALL)

Raj Pal Singh v. State of U. P

1990-08-23

K.K.BIRLA

body1990
ORDER K. K. Birla, J. - The petitioner, a Sub- Inspector of Police, is aggrieved by the suspension order dated 17-1-1990 passed. against him by the S.S.P. Mainpuri and by this writ petition he has requested for the issue of writ of certiorari quashing the aforesaid suspension order. 2. In brief, in the year 1986 he was posted in Police Station Kakwan, District Kanpur Dehat. A case of corruption was registered against Constable Raja Ram and the petitioner under Section 120-(B)/161, IPC and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner as well on 17th Nov. 1987. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to District Mainpuri on 12th January 1990. By the impugned order he has been suspended. The relevant portion is as below : "Sri Raj Pal Singh Tyagi S.I. against whom the disciplinary proceedings are contemplated for the following charges, is suspended with immediate effect (1) was involved in crime No. 63/86 under Section 161, IPC and (2) under Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act of P.S. Kakwan, District Kanpur Dehat. 3. In reply to the affidavit of the petitioner a short counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. As the affidavits have been exchanged, the petition is being disposed of finally. 4. The suspension order has been challenged on three grounds :- firstly it is contended that in the suspension order there is mention of contemplated enquiry and under para 496 of the Police Regulation a Police Officer can only be suspended during the pendency of an enquiry and as such the suspension on the basis of a contemplated enquiry is bad-in-law; secondly that the alleged misconduct was committed within the district of Kanpur Dehat and as such S.S.P. Mainpuri had no jurisdiction to suspend him; and thirdly that even though the-charge-sheet has been submitted, he has not been summoned by the Court and as such no judicial enquiry has started and the suspension order is illegal. 5. These contentions have been controverted by the learned Standing Counsel. It is concerned that the charge-sheet has been submit and as such his suspension during the Judicial enquiry is quite valid and that the suspension order has been passed by the proper authority as the petitioner was posted in district Mainpuri. 6. 5. These contentions have been controverted by the learned Standing Counsel. It is concerned that the charge-sheet has been submit and as such his suspension during the Judicial enquiry is quite valid and that the suspension order has been passed by the proper authority as the petitioner was posted in district Mainpuri. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record. 7. In view of para 496 it is clear that the police officers are liable to suspension only during the enquiry and not on the ground of a contemplated enquiry. This proposition is quite established and has been rightly conceded on behalf of the State. However in the instant case an investigation has been held and a charge-sheet has been submitted on 17-11-1987 as averred in para 3(a) of the counter-affidavit. So it is not a case of contemplated enquiry so far as the judicial enquiry is concerned. The liability of the Police Officer for being suspended is not only limited to the departmental enquiry but also is incurred in the case of judicial enquiry. 8. It takes us to the question whether at the time of the suspension the judicial enquiry had started or not, clearly enough the investigation contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code had been done and after such investigation by the Police a charge- sheet had been submitted in the Court as back as on 17th Nov. 1987. Therefore, the contention on behalf of the petitioner that no judicial enquiry has yet commenced is without substance. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that as the petitioner had not been summoned in the court till the date of suspension, his suspension was bad. It may be kept in mind that judicial enquiry is distinct from the judicial trial. The investigation under the Provisions of Criminal Procedure Code was not a departmental proceedings and is in the nature of judicial enquiry. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that he has been suspended before the contemplated judicial enquiry, the commencement of which will only be on being summoned by the Court, fails. 9. The last point for consideration is whether S.S.P. Mainpuri had no jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the S.P. can hold the enquiry and is competent to suspend a Sub-Inspector of Police. 9. The last point for consideration is whether S.S.P. Mainpuri had no jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the S.P. can hold the enquiry and is competent to suspend a Sub-Inspector of Police. Para 479(d) of the Police Regulations provides that the Superintendent of Police may punish all Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors temporarily or permanently subordinate to him except with dismissal or removal. Any case in which he proposes the dismissal or removal of an inspector or sub-inspector of any breach of the force must be forwarded for orders to the Deputy Inspector General of Police in accordance with the instructions contained in sub-paragraph 8 of paragraph 490 below - 10. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the offence was committed within the district of Kanpur Dehat, therefore, the suspension can only be made by S.S.P. Kanpur Dehat. In para 18 of the writ petition it is averred that the order if any, could have been passed was only by the S.S.P. Kanpur Dehat. It is contended that according to the para 479(f) of the Police Regulations unless the D.I.G. Kanpur had authorised the S.S.P. Mainpuri, he could not have passed the impugned order. Reliance-has been placed on the case of D.K. Dikshit v. Superintendent of Police, Kanpur, AIR 1956 All 172 . In my opinion, this contention is misconceived. The case of D.K. Dikshit (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the enquiry was being conducted by the Deputy S.P. Under Para 479(f) of the Police Regulations one of the categories who can exercise all the powers of the Superintendent of Police is Deputy Superintendent of Police specially authorised in this behalf of the Deputy Inspector General of Police so far as his range is concerned. In the cited case that Deputy Superintendent of Police was later on transferred from Sultanpur to a different range namely Kanpur. There was no separate authorisation for him by the D.I.G. of Kanpur range to conduct/continue the departmental enquiry. In these circumstances, the enquiry held by him was held to be without jurisdiction. In the instant case the Superintendent of Police of a district is competent to conduct the enquiry with regard to the police officers who are subordinate to him in that district as already quoted above. In these circumstances, the enquiry held by him was held to be without jurisdiction. In the instant case the Superintendent of Police of a district is competent to conduct the enquiry with regard to the police officers who are subordinate to him in that district as already quoted above. Para479(d) provides that the Superintendent of Police may punish all Inspectors and Sub- Inspectors of Police temporarily or permanently subordinate to him. In this case, the petitioner was clearly enough subordinate to him, even it be taken as temporarily, and as such the S.S.P. Mainpuri has the power of suspension. The place where the misconduct is alleged to have taken place will not be relevant. In my opinion after the police officer of rank of Sub-Inspector of Police is transferred from that district to another district and the proper authority to deal with such cases will be the Superintendent of Police of the district where he has been so transferred and is working at the time of the suspension order. In the case before me, the order of suspension has been passed by the S.S.P. of the district in which the petitioner was posted. In view of the above discussions this contention on behalf of the petitioner also fails. 11. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the enquiry had already been conducted by the S.S.P. Kanpur and nothing was found against the petitioner. If that was so, the order of S.S.P. Kanpur or any material to show the same could have been filed by the petitioner which has not been done. Moreover as is clear from the facts given above, the petitioner had been suspended after the charge-sheet had been submitted against him before a Criminal Court. 12. For the reasons given above, the writ petition has no force and is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.