P. Rajender vs Union Of India And Another on 24 July, 2001
It is contended by Dr. Satyanarayana Rao that the petitioner
has been unnecessarily implicated in the crime, at the first
instance by the local police, for various other reasons, in spite of
the police knowing that the petitioner is no way concerned with the
crime. Be that as it may, the learned counsel would further
contend that the petitioner has not exhibited any conduct, which is
even slightly blameworthy, while he was performing his duties.
Admittedly, the crime has taken place near about some temple in a
neighbouring area. Even the First Information Report did not
name the petitioner. He was shown as Accused No. 12 amongst 13
accused persons by the police. The learned counsel therefore,
would contend that placing the petitioner under suspension, for no
fault of his and only on the ground that the police have registered
a crime against him, is wholly unjust. The learned counsel has
placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of
this Court in P. Rajender v. Union of India as well as the
judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.
10583 of 1999 on 18.07.2005 which judgment has been approved
by a Division Bench when appealed against in Writ Appeal No.
2027 of 2005 on 20.10.2005. The learned counsel would also urge
that consistently this Court has been directing the respondent
public authorities to reinstate the employees placed under
suspension for their involvement in crimes, which have taken place
outside the arena of employment.