ATULKUMAR T JADWANI PSI Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE JUNAGADH
LAWS(GJH)-1988-12-11
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on December 06,1988

ATULKUMAR T.JADWANI (P.S.I.) Appellant
VERSUS
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,JUNAGADH Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

YUSUF AHMEDMIYA SHAIKH VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SURAT CITY [LAWS(GJH)-2005-7-50] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P.R.GOKULAKRISHNAN - (1.)This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge wherein the learned Judge rejected the Special Civil Application No. 7533 of 1988. In that petition the appellant herein wanted to quash the order of suspension passed against him. The appellant while working as Police Sub-Inspector at Astodia Police Station is alleged to have accepted a sum of Rs 1300 as bribe and also got his motor cycle filled up with petrol worth about Rs. 20.00. It is also alleged that he delayed filing of the complaint given by one Chimanlal Maganlal. The complaint originally given by Chimanlal Maganlal was regarding a theft of certain silver materials There is a clear allegation in the chargesheet that the appellant has not only accepted the bride of Rs. 1300.00 but has also got his motor cycle filled with the petrol costing Rs. 20.00 stating that he will investigate the matter. It is also clear that the registration of the complaint was delayed. The complaint was made by Chimanlal Maganlal as early as on 25-5-1984 and the registration of the said complaint was done after the delay of four days i. e. on 29-5-1984. If the complaint is proved there is definitely moral turpitude involved in the same. The appellant being a P.S.I. cannot afford to continue in service if such offence has been committed by him. The chargesheet in this case was filed only on 18-10-1988 and subsequently on 27-10-1988 the suspension order has been passed.
(2.)The learned single Judge after observing that the appellant if continued in services will definitely have an opportunity to repeat the same type of misconduct upheld the order of suspension. It is against the said order of the learned single Judge rejecting the petition that the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.
(3.)Mr. J. R Nanavati learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is a delay of nearly four years in suspending the appellant after the alleged commission of the offence; that the Police constable who has been chargesheet along with him for the very same offence has not been suspended; that the appellant has already been transferred to Junagadh and as such there is no question of any suspension at this late stage. Learned Counsel also cited the judgment of the learned single Judge and a Bench decision to support his case.
;


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