Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. It may be appropriate to have a look at certain portions of the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. In para-6 of the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it was stated:

"That the Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone submitted a report dt. 24-1-2005 to the 3rd respondent through Additional Commissioner of Police, Coordination mentioning about various allegations in which the petitioner was involved. The 3rd respondent forwarded the said report to the 2nd respondent for further action. The 2nd respondent taking into account the various allegations that are brought to his notice against the petitioner, in his discretion though it fit to place the petitioner under suspension in public interest by exercising the powers conferred upon him under Clause (a) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 vide proceedings dt. 1-2-2005. The said suspension was ordered by the 2nd respondent in view of the contemplated disciplinary action against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged these proceedings also in O.A.No. 589/2005 before the Hon'ble Tribunal. It is curious to note that the 3rd respondent was arrayed in his personal capacity as 4th respondent in the O.A. though the impugned orders were passed by the 2nd respondent. At any time the Hon'ble Tribunal, having regard to the fact that there is a provision available for the petitioner to avail statutory appeal under Rule 33 of A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991, disposed of the O.A. on 24-2-2005 directing the petitioner herein to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority within 2 weeks from the date of the Order and further it was directed that the same be disposed of within 6 weeks thereafter. The said orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal are challenged in the present Writ Petition by the Petitioner."

It was further stated in para -13 that:

".........it is submitted that, the petitioner while working as Asst. Commissioner of Police, Banjara Hills Division, has exhibited grave misconduct, incorrigible, indifferent, indisciplined and irresponsible behaviour towards his legitimte duties and also committed serious lapses in the matters pertinent to the following criminal cases:
(1) Cr.No. 168/2004 Under Section 307 IPC, 25(1), 27 of Indian Arms Act 1955 of Jubilee Hills PS. (2) Cr.No. 704/04 Under Section 406, 420 IPC of Banjara Hills PS. (3) Cr.No. 42/2005 Under Section 427, 447 IPC of Banjara Hills PS. (4) Cr.No.. 17/2005 Under Section 147, 148, 427, 323 IPC of Jubilee Hills PS. The petitioner's conduct in matters relating to civil disputes, property disputes and handling of certain issues of policing had been questionable on many a occasion. It was contemplated to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in the right earnest and it was considered that his continuance in service will prejudice the disciplinary proceedings. Accordingly the 2nd respondent, after careful consideration of available material and having due regard to the circumstances of the whole issue, and in exercise of powers conferred on him by Clause (a) of Sub-rule (1) of Rules 8 r/w. Rule 13 SI.No. 17(B) of the table of the A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991, has placed the petitioner under suspension in public interest till disciplinary proceedings are completed. It is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to attribute mala fide intention and personal grudge to the 4th respondent and the same on the part of petitioner is malicious and baseless."

It was also pleaded in para-27 that:

"......It is stated that the petitioner is confused and/or is trying to confuse this Hon'ble Court by stating that he was appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police under Rule 11 (25)(1) of A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991. The question of Deputy Superintendent of Police being appointed under A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 is a misconceived notion. As a matter of fact G.O.Ms. No. 424, dated 30-11-1996 does not refer to that. Rule 11 talks of disciplinary authorities in State services and under Rule 11 (25)(1) of A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991, no doubt it is the Deputy Inspector General of Police who is competent to impose minor punishment under Rule 9 on Deputy Superintendents of Police. Presently no punishment is imposed upon him and it only a suspension contemplating disciplinary proceedings under Rule 8(1 )(a) and the contention of the petitioner that the suspension is under Clause (5) of Rule 9 and therefore the 2nd respondent cannot pass orders of suspension and that he is not authorized to do so is a very farfetched argument/contention. First of all Rule 25 refers to Deputy Inspector General of Police whereas the 2nd respondent is the Director General of Police. Secondly Rule 9 deals with punishments and the suspension under Rule 9(5) is a different kind of suspension under minor punishments but not suspension under Rule 8(1 )(a). Further as the 2nd respondent being the Head of the Department is Competent Authority to suspend the petitioner, which is clear from Rule 13 of A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991. The petitioner comes under State services. Rule 13 deals with authorities competent to suspend members of State services. It is specifically mentioned that second level Gazetted Post Officers can be suspended by the Heads of the Department concerned. Deputy Superintendent of Police is a second level Gazetted Post and therefore the 2nd respondent has the jurisdiction and authority to suspend the petitioner. In view of the matter the whole contention of the petitioner in this regard is misconceived and deserves to be rejected."
It is the exigency of the conditions of service which requires to call for an Order of suspension and there can Administrative Service or the State service. The Government is entitled to place an officer under suspension even before definite charges have been communicated, after preliminary investigation has been made into the conduct of the officer concerned following allegations of corruption or malpractices levelled against him. Rule 10 empowers the appointing authority to place a member of the service under suspension when disciplinary action is under contemplation. This Rule read with Rule 15 makes it clear that disciplinary proceedings is contemplated only when the authority concerned is satisfied that there is prima facie case for taking action. It is on the basis of complaint received or on consideration of the report of investigation or for other reasons the authority is to satisfy that prima facie case exists. Therefore either there should be a complaint alleging misconduct or report of investigation or other material for exercising the power of suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge the only basis for the action against the 1st respondent in this case is the legal opinion furnished by the law officer on the particular award in one case and the inference there on drawn by the Secretary to Government. The facts and materials on the file when the impugned Order was passed are the only relevant considerations in judging the necessity of the suspension. The letter of the law officer did not contain imputation of improper motive or misconduct in the sense it is understood in disciplinary proceedings. No reference is made in the file regarding other awards passed by the respondent nor is there any allegation of corrupt practices. The inference of improper motive by the Secretary is a mere conjecture and even then the Secretary has only suggested the shifting of the respondent from the post of Chief Engineer (Arbitration) in the interest of the administration. The Chief Secretary however thought it fit to place the respondent under suspension as a deterrent step and to Order a vigilance enquiry. There can be no doubt that the proposed action was on extraneous considerations and not as a prelude to any contemplated disciplinary action after preliminary investigation into the conduct of the officer following allegations of corruption or of malpractice levelled against him. Since the only step taken by the Government was to Order vigilance investigation, in the absence of any serious allegations of misconduct or other materials for prima facie satisfaction of the authority, the power under Rule 10 could not have been exercised before receipt of the report of the investigation. It is not correct to say that the Chief Secretary while recommending the action of suspending the 1st respondent had taken into consideration the nature and number of awards passed by the respondent or the necessity or desirability of placing the respondent under suspension to facilitate an impartial enquiry. The qualitative and quantitative assessment of the work and conduct of the arbitrator with reference to the other awards appear to have been thought of only in the course of these proceedings before court. The only consideration that weighed with the Chief Secretary in proposing the suspension was that the action should be deterrent in administrative matters. As rightly pointed out by the learned Judge the stage has not reached for punishment and the proposed action was on extraneous consideration. The mala fides of the action lies in the absence of valid considerations. The learned Judge has rightly quashed the impugned Order of suspension with the reservations for future action, if found necessary.....".