9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Challenge to the order of suspension based on alleged mala fide report and violation of Rule 7 of the All-India Service (Appeal and Discipline) Rules, 1955. Analysis: The appellant, an Inspector General of Police, challenged the order of suspension placed on him, alleging mala fide intentions behind the suspension order and non-compliance with Rule 7 of the All-India Service (Appeal and Discipline) Rules, 1955. The appellant contended that the suspension order was based on a report made mala fide and that the order did not satisfy the provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7. The crux of the matter revolved around whether the suspension order was in violation of Rule 7, which allows suspension when disciplinary proceedings are initiated and the government deems it necessary. The appellant argued that the order did not reference Rule 7 and was not made in conjunction with any disciplinary proceedings. The suspension order was issued by the Government of India after an investigation revealed serious allegations of corruption against the appellant. The Central Bureau of Investigation conducted an inquiry, and the appellant was charged with offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant contended that he was not suspended under sub-rule (3) of Rule 7, which deals with suspension pending criminal charges. However, the court found that the suspension order was made in light of the ongoing investigation and trial related to criminal charges against the appellant. The government applied its mind to the allegations and circumstances before suspending the appellant, and there was no evidence of mala fide intentions. The appellant also raised allegations against the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and others, but they were not made parties to the case. The affidavits filed lacked proper verification, impacting their admissibility as evidence. The appellant failed to substantiate claims of mala fides or collateral purposes behind the suspension order. The court emphasized the importance of verifying allegations to establish their authenticity and the responsibility of the deponent. The appellant's failure to name specific individuals or provide concrete evidence undermined the claims of mala fides. The court refrained from delving into the merits of the criminal charges or the validity of the investigation, given the pending trial. The appellant's contention regarding the vires of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was left open for consideration during the criminal trial. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, with each party directed to bear its costs in the absence of a cost order from the High Court.
|
