DHIRENDRA KUMAR SAHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1976-11-17
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on November 05,1976

DHIRENDRA KUMAR SAHA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

TAMAL GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2003-8-45] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioner is a Sub-Inspector of Police in the West Bengal Police Service. At the relevant time was attached to Canning Police Station, within the 24 Parganas. On April 1, 1975, the Superintendent of Police, 24 Parganas passed the following order placing the petitioner under suspension, vide Annexure 'F': - "S.I., Dhirendra Kumar Saha of Canning P.S. is placed under suspension with effect from 1.4.75 A.M. for his misconuct and negligent investigation of Canning P.S. Case No.36 dated 26.2.75 u/s. 364/302/201 I.P.C. and for not starting a case u/s 436 I.P.C. up to 31.3.76. He will draw " of his pay as S.A. plus usual allowance during suspension period and will report to H.Qrs. at once and will deposit his kits." Subsequently, on May 7, 1975 he was served with a charge-sheet which alleged that he was guilty of gross dereliction of duty and negligent investigation unbecoming of Police Inspector. It is not necessary for me to set out particulars of the charges against the petitioner inasmuch as the disciplinary proceeding in respect of the said charge is pending and the same is not the subject matter of the present Rule.
(2.)In my view, the order of suspension dated April 1, 1975 Annexure 'F' impugned in the present Rule should be quashed as illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner's case is that the said suspension order, Annexure 'F' was not a compliance with Rule 880, Clause (a) of the Police Regulations Bengal, 1943, Volume I. In the first place, the respondents did not produce any material before me to show that on the date the petitioner was placed under suspension, either a disciplinary proceeding was pending against him or it was even contemplated. Secondly, neither the order of suspension Annexure 'F', nor any other materials on record indicate that the Superintendent of Police, 24 Parganas, had formed any opinion that continuance in office by the petitioner pending enquiry against his conduct would be prejudicial to public interest. I have already set out the suspension order Annexure 'F', to the writ petition. The same categorically stated that the petitioner has been placed under suspension with effect from April, 1, 1975 "for his misconduct and negligent investigation of Canning P.S. Case No.36 dated 26th February, 1975 under Section 364/302/201 I.P.C. an for not starting a case under Section 436 I.P.C. upto 31st March, 1975". Thus, the suspension order on the face of it stated that the petitioner was being placed under suspension by way of punishment for his alleged misconduct and negligence. Plainly, this was not permissible in law. Admittedly, there was no enquiry against the petitioner prior to the passing of the suspension order and imposition of suspension by way of penalty upon the petitioner was illegal and in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice.
(3.)Further, in the instant case on perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by Amal Kumar Dutt, Superintendent of Police, 24-Parganas, I find that he did not state that the deponent had satisfied himself that continuance in office by the petitioner pending enquiry into his conduct would be prejudicial to public interest. The records have not been produced before me to establish that the same contained any endorsement contemporaneously made by the suspending authority who suspend the petitioner that continuance in office by the petitioner pending enquiry against him would be prejudicial to public interest.
;


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