Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 404 (UTT)

Charanjeet Kaur v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-10-12

LOK PAL SINGH

body2020
JUDGMENT Lok Pal Singh, J. - Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:- i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the impugned Suspension Order dated 14th July 2020 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, PAC, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, whereby the petitioner was suspended in contemplation of departmental disciplinary proceedings, being arbitrary and erroneous. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the Rule 17 the SSP being the appointing authority could have place the petitioner under suspension, but the petitioner has been placed under suspension by the DIG. Rule 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 is quoted herein under: 17. Suspension-(1) (a) A Police Officer against whose conduct an enquiry is contemplated, or is proceedings, may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the enquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority or by any other authority not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, authorised by him in this behalf. (b) A Police Officer in respect of or against whom an investigation, enquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending may at the discretion of the appointing authority under whom he is serving be placed under suspension, until the termination of all proceedings relating to that charge, if the charge is connected with his position as a Police Officer or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude. If the prosecution is instituted by a private person on complaint, the appointing authority may decide whether the circumstances of the case justify the suspension of the accused. (2) A Police Officer shall be deemed to have been placed, or, as the case may be, continued to be placed, under suspension by an order of the appointing authority- (a) with effect from the date of his detention if he is detained in custody whether the detention is on Criminal Charge or otherwise for a period exceeding forty eight hours ; (b) with effect from the date of his conviction if in the event of a conviction for an offence he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed consequent to such conviction. Explanation-The period of forty-eight hours referred to in Clause (b) of this sub-rule shall be computed from the commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction and for this purpose intermittent periods of imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into account. (3) Where a penalty of dismissal or removal from service imposed upon a Police Officer is set aside in appeal or on review under these rules and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any other directions- (a) If he was under suspension immediately before the penalty was awarded to him, the order of his suspension shall, subject to any such directions as aforesaid, be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal or removal ; (b) If he was not under suspension, he shall, if so directed by the appellate or reviewing authority, be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority, on and from the date of the original order of dismissal or removal; Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be construed as effecting the power of the competent authority, in a case where a penalty of dismissal or removal from service imposed upon a Police Officer is set aside in appeal or on review under these rules on grounds other than the merits of the allegations on which the said penalty was imposed but the case is not remitted for further inquiry or action or with any directions, to pass an order of suspension pending further inquiry against him on those allegations, so, however, that any such suspension shall not have retrospective effect. (4) Where a penalty of dismissal or removal from service imposed upon a Police Officer is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of law and the appointing authority, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal or removal was originally imposed, whether the allegations remain in their original form are clarified or their particulars better specified or any part thereof a minor nature omitted- (a) if he was under suspension immediately before the penalty was awarded to him, the order of his suspension shall, subject to any direction of the appointing authority, be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal or removal; (b) if he was not under suspension, he shall, if so directed by the appointing authority, be deemed to have been placed under suspension on and from the date of the original order of dismissal or removal. (5) (a) Any suspension ordered or deemed to have been ordered or to have continued in force under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by any authority specified in subrule (1). (b) Where a Police Officer is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended whether in connection with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise and any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him during the continuance of that suspension, the authority competent to place him under suspension may for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, direct that the Police Officer shall continue to be under suspension till the termination of all or any of such proceedings. (6) Subsidiary Rule 199, Financial Hand Book, Volume II, Part II to IV, shall cease to apply to the police officers governed by this rule. 3. It is averred that being the order passed by the superior authority which has not been authorized by the SSP, the suspension order is not sustainable. 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the DIG is the superior authority, therefore, he is competent to pass the suspension order. 5. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the petitioner has succeeded to obtain the interim order; therefore, the disciplinary proceedings could not be concluded yet. 6. 4. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the DIG is the superior authority, therefore, he is competent to pass the suspension order. 5. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the petitioner has succeeded to obtain the interim order; therefore, the disciplinary proceedings could not be concluded yet. 6. It is settled position in law that suspension is not a punishment unless the court finds out that the suspension order is arbitrary and punitive in nature. This court would not have interfere in this suspension order. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & another Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal has held that normally the court should not interfere in the suspension order. 7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to disciplinary authority to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.