K.C. Agrawal, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Angad Singh Yadav, who was posted as Station Officer, G.R.P. Mathura, challenging the suspension order dated 17th October, 1985. A first information report was lodged by one Munendra Nath Chaturvedi Advocate, the brother of Pankaj Chaturvedi, the victim. It was alleged in the First Information Report that Rs. 8400/ - had been snatched by the police personnel from Pankaj Chaturvedi on the 1st June, 1985 by beating him. On this complaint, enquiry was first entrusted to K.N. Gautam, who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Railways), Agra. He submitted interim report that it was not possible to verify the correctness of the allegations made in the F.I.R. dated 1st June, 1985. During the pendency of the enquiry by K.N. Gautam, Munish Chandra made another complaint to the Director General of Police who ordered. Inspector General of Police (Anti Corruption) to make independent enquiry into the allegations made by Pankaj Chaturvedi. In this representation to the Director General of Police, allegations were made against K.N. Gautam Deputy Superintendent of Police. On the report of Deputy Inspector General of Police (Anti Corruption) the suspension order was passed by the Superintendent of Police who was a competent Authority.
(2.) CHALLENGING the suspension order, the petitioner's counsel mainly raised two points, One was that the suspension was in contravention of para 495 of Police Regulations and, as such, the order was liable to be quashed. The second argument was that it was mala fide. We will take up the second ground relating to mala fide first.
(3.) THE petitioner's case was that Munendra Nath Chaturvedi, the complainant, was since related to Sri J.N. Chaturvedi, who was the Director General of Police at that time, that the case was entrusted for enquiry to Deputy Inspector General of Police (Anti Corruption) and it was on account of his interest in the matter that the suspension order was passed.;