LAWS(GJH)-1987-4-6

J V PUWAR DY S P BARODA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On April 24, 1987
J V Puwar Dy S P Baroda Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three police officers of different ranks have challenged their orders of suspension. Since they arise out of same common incident they were argued and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioner J. V. Puwar (Special Civil Application No 292 of 19873 was the Dy. Superintendent of Police (Sub Divisional Police Officer) the petitioner B. C. Joshi (Special Civil Application No. 411 of 1987) was Police Sub-Inspector and petitioner B. J. Parmar (Special Civil Application No. 551 of 1987) was Police Inspector at Rajpipla. There was an incident in which it is alleged that some police constables committed a rape on a tribal woman and there was serious lapse in recording and investigating the complaint and ultimately under the orders of the Supreme Court investigation had to be entrusted to C.B.I. The Supreme Court had also appointed a Commission to inquire into and report about the incident and the investigation and that Commission had made a bulky report to the Supreme Court and from the findings of the Commission it appears that these three police officers had not properly investigated and performed their duties and had tried to cover up and protect the police constables who are alleged to have committed rape on the tribal woman. As a result of the above the petitioners were transferred and thereafter suspended and these suspension orders are challenged.

(3.) The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 292 of 1987 who was Sub-Divisional Police Officer Rajpipla at the relevant time in January 1986 was transferred on 11-6-1986 and has been suspended on 30 He has submitted that he has about 40 years of service and he is due to retire in June 1987 and when he was already transferred to Junagadh in June 1986 there was no justification for suspending him in January 1987. He has submitted that he had supervised the investigation and carried out his duties properly and there was no reason whatsoever for suspending him.