C.P. Ramakant Tripathi vs State of U.P. and Another

Dilip Gupta, J.—The Petitioner who is a Constable in the Civil Police is aggrieved by the order dated 15th December, 2010 by which the Petitioner has been placed under suspension.

A perusal of the allegations contained in the suspension order show that on 3rd October, 2010 the Petitioner in a drunken state forced the tempo drivers to take him to Police Station Mungisapur and when refused, he misbehaved with them which act of the Petitioner has lowered the prestige of the Police in the eyes of the public. The order further shows that the Circle Officer has been directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry and submit the report within a week.

Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner could not have been suspended during the pendency of the preliminary inquiry and in support of this contention has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court delivered on 6th November, 2009 in Writ Petition No. 55225 of 2009 (Constable 514 C.P. Ravindra Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.) and the judgment delivered on 5th January, 2010 in Writ Petition No. 71821 of 2009 (Constable 79 A.P. Bal Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.).

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents has placed before the Court the Full Bench decision of this Court in Raj Veer Singh v. State of U.P. 2010 (10) ADJ 246 and has contended that there is no illegality in suspending the Petitioner during the pendency of the preliminary inquiry.

The judgments in Ravindra Singh (supra) and Bal Raj Singh (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner have placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of the Court in State of U.P. v. Jai Singh Dixit 1975 ALR 64. The Full Bench of the Court in Raj Veer Singh (supra) decided whether the Full Bench in the case of Shahroj Anwar Khan Vs. State of U.P. and Another, was correct in recording in paragraph 21 that the word ''inquiry'' as contemplated under Rule 17(1)(a) (Para materia to Rule 49-A of the C.C.A. Rules) will include a preliminary inquiry and to be precise whether the word ''inquiry'' in the said Rules includes within its ambit preliminary inquiry inasmuch as the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jai Singh Dixit (supra) has specifically held that the word ''''inquiry'', under Rule 49-A of the C.C.A. Rules, necessarily refers to formal departmental inquiry referable to Rule 55 and 56-A of the C.C.A. Rules or Rules 6 and 7 of the U.P. Police Officer of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and whether, while directing preliminary inquiry, the power to suspend has to be exercised on objective consideration of material on record of each case and therefore it is for the State Government on a challenge being made to an order of suspension in contemplation of an inquiry to justify by such material on record that irrespective of preliminary inquiry the authority was satisfied that suspension was warranted in the facts of the case.

The Full Bench observed that from the ratio as laid down in paragraph 37 of the five Judges Larger Bench judgment in Jai Singh Dixit (supra), it is clear that the departmental inquiry can be said to be contemplated when on objective consideration of the material the appointing authority considers the case as one which would lead to a departmental inquiry, irrespective of whether any preliminary inquiry, summary or detailed, has or has not been made or if made, is not complete.

The Full Bench accordingly held that a departmental inquiry is contemplated when on objective consideration of the material the appointing authority considers the case as one which would lead to a departmental, inquiry, irrespective of whether any preliminary inquiry, summary or detailed, has or has not been made or if made, is not complete. However, whether a suspension order passed during pendency of preliminary inquiry is valid or not is another question which has to be answered according to the test as laid down in Jai Singh Dixit (supra) i.e. when on objective consideration of the materials the appointing authority considers the case as one which would lead to a departmental inquiry.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is, therefore, not justified in submitting that there is no power to suspend the Petitioner during the pendency of the preliminary enquiry. It needs to be mentioned that it is not the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that there was no material before the appointing authority to objectively consider whether the case was one which would lead to departmental enquiry. It also needs to be noticed that the Petitioner has not stated that the preliminary enquiry directed to be concluded within one week from the date of the suspension order dated 3rd October, 2010 has not been completed.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner then submitted that the allegations contained in the suspension order are not correct and that the Petitioner was falsely implicated by the Station House Officer since the Petitioner was making efforts to check the illegal transportation of cows.

This is a defense which can be taken by the Petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings and it is not possible for this Court at this stage to make any comments on the said submissions.

There is, therefore, no good reason to interfere with the suspension order.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.