- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. The petitioner is facing criminal trial under Section 354 I. P. C. as on 5-7-96 one Smt. Shobha Devi lodged an FIR against the petitioner who was posted as a Sub-Inspector in Police Sta tion Deorahat, district Kanpur Dehat, alleg ing that on that date at about 8. 30 p. m. the petitioner entered her house along with two other persons. The petitioner was dead drunk, though he was in police dress. At that time there was no person in the house of the complainant, the petitioner torn away her blouse and misbehaved with her. On raising the noise other persons came there and the petitioner was apprehended. The petitioner was taken into custody by the Deputy Super intendent of Police and Station House Of ficer of Bhognipur from the house of the complainant as they arrived there on her complain. The aforesaid case was registered against the petitioner under Section 354 I. P. C. and he was sent to jail. After being enlarged on bail the petitioner was suspended resorting to the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishments and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The petitioner was put under suspension by the Superintendent of Police, respondent no. 2 vide impugned order dated 10-7-96 contained in annexure 2 to the writ petition.
(2.) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the impugned order on various grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned suspension order has been passed by the Superintendent of Police who is not the appointing authority of the petitioner. Ac cording to the averments made in the writ petition the Deputy Inspector General of Police is the appointing authority of the petitioner and thus, the impugned order is bad for want of competence. In State of M. P. Sardul Singh, 1970 (1) SCC 108, the Supreme Court held that Article 311 (1) of the Constitution provides for guarantee to a civil servant that he would not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to his appointing authority but it does not provide for further guarantee that the disciplinary proceedings resulting in dismissal or removal of a civil servant should also be initiated and conducted by the authority mentioned therein.
(3.) SIMILARLY, in E. V. Srinivas Shastri v. Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 1993 (1) SCC 419, the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborated the same issue again and observed as under: "it need not be pointed out that initiation of a departmental proceedings per se does not visit the officer concerned with any evil consequences and the framers of the Constitution do not consider it necessary to guarantee even that too holder of civil posts. . . . . . . . At the same time this will not give right to authorities having the same rank as that of the officer against whom proceedings is to be initiated to take a decision whether any such proceedings should be initiated. In absence of a rule any supervisory authority, who can be held to be a controlling authority, can initiate such proceeding. " A view similar to Srinivas Shastri (supra) case has been taken by the Supreme Court in Inspector General of Police and another v. Thavasiappan, 1992 (2) SCC 145 and Director General, E. S. I, and another V. E. Abdul Razak, 1996 (6) JT 502.;