DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD Vs. K RATNAGIRI
LAWS(SC)-1990-3-63
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ANDHRA PRADESH)
Decided on March 30,1990

DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,ANDHRA PRADESH,HYDERABAD Appellant
VERSUS
K.RATNAGIRI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. V SIVARAMAN [FOLLOWED]



Cited Judgements :-

RAJEEV KUMAR TYAGI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2007-7-172] [REFERRED TO]
AMOY MORANG VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2009-8-28] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPRAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2006-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
P JAGADEESAN VS. COMMISSIONER PONDICHERRY MUNICIPALITY PONDICHERRY [LAWS(MAD)-1999-4-157] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SHIVRAM SAMBHAJIRAO SADAWARTE [LAWS(BOM)-2000-12-45] [REFERRED TO]
SPECIAL OFFICER VS. C POONGODI [LAWS(MAD)-2004-10-117] [REFERRED TO]
V RAJENDRAN VS. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER IN CHARGE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-12-67] [REFERRED TO]
NAGARAJU VS. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE TRICHY [LAWS(MAD)-2010-11-153] [REFERRED TO]
R KUMAR VS. SECRETARY TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION GOVERNMENT ESTATE [LAWS(MAD)-2010-12-384] [REFERRED TO]
R GOPAL VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-222] [REFERRED TO]
BADRUD DOJA VS. HEAVY ENGINEERING CORPORATION [LAWS(PAT)-1992-6-4] [DISTINGUISHED]
N.MATHI VS. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2012-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
P. CHIDAMBARAM VS. SECRETARY [LAWS(MAD)-2011-8-417] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD ASLAM LAIGAROO VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-1999-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
K AROKIA NATHAN VS. SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER NORTH [LAWS(MAD)-2011-7-89] [REFERRED TO]
BHABIT CHANDRA SAUD VS. KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN [LAWS(CA)-2012-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA GANDHI COLLEGE FOR WOMEN COMMITTEE VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-7-447] [REFERRED TO]
S. SANTHI VS. THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION LTD., CHENNAI - 600002, [LAWS(MAD)-2012-11-396] [REFERRED TO]
M. JAGGUBAR ALI AND ORS. VS. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-8-38] [REFERRED TO]
BISHNU PRASAD SAHOO VS. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2015-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
P PALANISAMY VS. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2010-11-484] [REFERRED]
P CHIDAMBARAM VS. SECRETARY, ARIGNAR ANNA COLLEGE [LAWS(MAD)-2011-8-459] [REFERRED]
I SELVARAJ VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2007-7-501] [REFERRED]
R MURUGAVEL VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2013-8-250] [REFERRED]
V RAJENDRAN VS. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (IN-CHARGE); DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2009-12-693] [REFERRED]
P.S.K. SINGARAVELU VS. THE SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-12-75] [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA GANDHI COLLEGE FOR WOMEN COMMITTEE VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2018-4-121] [REFERRED TO]
PRANJAL BORAH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2018-7-145] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT GOGOI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-11-47] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. - (1.)Special leave granted.
(2.)The respondent in this appeal K. Ratnagiri was at the material time Circle Inspector of Police attached to Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. In that police station one U. Narasimha died in Police lock up. Pending prosecution with regard to that offence, the Director General of Police made an order keeping the respondent under suspension. The order reads:
"Sri K. Ratnagiri, Circle Inspector of Police, Sanjiva Reddy Nagar P.S. Hyderabad is placed under suspension with immediate effect in public interest until further orders pending prosecution against him in the case of. death of U. Narasimha in Police lock-up".

(3.)The respondent appealed to the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has set aside the suspension order holding that the respondent shall be deemed to be in service from the date of issue of suspension order. The Tribunal, however, has reserved liberty to the Government to transfer him to any other Police Station. It has been held that the order of suspension becomes invalid after the period of six months since the Government did not make a fresh order extending the period of suspension. It has been further stated that the Director General has no power to keep the respondent under suspension pending investigation of the case against. him. Both these conditions are rested solely on the scope of R. 13(1) of the A. P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1963. For immediate reference we may set out the Rules hereunder:
"13(1). A member of service may be placed under suspension from service pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges, where such suspension is necessary in the public interest.

Provided that where a member of a service has been suspended by an authority other than the Government and the investigation has not been completed and the action proposed to be taken in regard to him has not been completed within a period of six months of the date of suspension, the fact shall be reported to the Government, for such orders as they may deem fit.

13.2 to 13.4 **********

13(5). An order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule may, at any time, be revoked by the authority which made or is deemed to have been made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate."

R. 13(1) provides power to keep an officer under suspension from service pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges, where such suspension is necessary in the public interest. Proviso thereunder requires the authority who made the order of suspension to report to the Government where the investigation into the charges and the action proposed to be taken against the officer has not been completed within the period of six months from the date of suspension. Upon receipt of the report, the Government may make such orders as they deem fit having regard to the circumstances or development in the case. Proviso thus imposes only an obligation on the authority to report to the Government, but it does not limit the period of suspension. It does not state that the suspension order comes to an end by the end of six months. It may be noted that the suspension order is not an interim suspension. Nor the R. 13(1) limits its operation only for six months. R. 13(5) provides that the order of suspension may, at any time, be revoked by the authority who made or is deemed to have been made the order or by any authority to which that authority is subordinate. That apparently suggests that the order of suspension once made will continue to operate till it is revoked by an appropriate order. Therefore, there appears to be no justification to contend that the order of suspension would not last beyond six months. It has been passed by the competent authority who shall report to the Government if the action is not completed within six months. The Government may review the case and make further or other order but the order of suspension will continue to operate till it is rescinded by an appropriate authority.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.