Minaxi Zaverbhai Jethva vs State Of Gujarat on 15 December, 1999
In the case of A.C.Barot vs. District Superintendent of Police, reported in 1990 (1) G.L.H. 545, it was considered by the Court that, 'may be that some incident might have taken place of abusing or causing hurt but that was all in the private capacity of the petitioner as a person and not either in the discharge of his duty or in abuse of the power as a police officer.' The Court noticed that in that case there was total absence of any allegation that the petitioner abused his power or misconducted himself as a Police Officer. It has been laid down that before the exercise of power of suspension the competent authority has to consider various aspects, viz., gravity of alleged misconduct, seriousness of the offence, availability of the evidence, prima facie case of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and continuance in service likely to hamper the inquiry or investigation or likelihood of interference with the witnesses or tampering with the evidence or that the continuance of such public servant would afford an opportunity to indulge in similar misconduct or offence again. It has been further observed in the aforesaid case that if the acts of misconduct or misbehavior or the alleged offences are not as stated above, any other irregularity or misconduct should not be the ground for the suspension of the public servant. It is evident that not only specific criteria is laid down for exercising the power of suspension but even the mandatory instructions are issued not to resort to the suspension in case of other irregularity or misconduct and before exercising or resorting to the power of suspension, the above criteria are required to be satisfied. The whole idea is that the suspension orders have to be passed and the suspension has to be continued after due and active application of mind with an objective approach to the facts of each case and it is not as if that the duty of the concerned authority is over after passing the suspension order and the employee is left to continue under suspension indefinitely. The cases of suspension cannot be taken so lightly and such matters cannot be left totally uncared for as if nothing more was required to be done after placing the employee under suspension or after saying that it is a case of deemed suspension. Be that as it may, this Court finds that even if the order dt.13.4.98 was valid at the point of time when it was passed, because it was a case of deemed suspension permissible under the Rules, continuance thereof is wholly unwarranted and the inaction to consider the case for modification or revocation of the suspension order shows a total lack of application of mind. The continuance of the petitioner under suspension on the basis of the order dt.13.4.98 is, therefore, found to be illegal.