TARAK NATH GHOSH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issue of an appropriate writ quashing the order of the Government of India, dated the 31st, July, 1064, annexure A to the petition, and, in the alternative, for directing the opposite party to disclose the charges against the petitioner available to the opposite party on the 31st July, 1964, and the nature of the departmental proceeding against him on the same date. The petitioner is a member of the Indian Police Service having been recruited as a result of a competitive examination held in the year 1956. His appointment was made on the 26th of January, 1957. His case is that he served in various capacities in Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Bihar, when he was posted as Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Southern Range, Ranchi, in this State substantively in June 1962. On the 23rd of July, 1964, however he received an order of transfer to Patna and was posted as Special Officer, Political, General and Transport Department (Transport Branch), Patna. While he was serving in that capacity, he received a communication from the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, dated the 31st of July, 1964, placing him under suspension with immediate effect. On receipt of the communication, the petitioner requested the Government to supply him with a copy of any report which might have been submitted against him by any enquiring officer such as the Inspector-General of Police, which might have led to the order of suspension contained in the aforesaid letter. The petitioner's request was made by letter dated the 17th August, 1964. No reply was, however, received by the petitioner.

(2.) On the 24th of August, 1964, the petitioner addressed a petition to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, through the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar, stating that either the charges upon which the Government felt satisfied that the order of suspension should be passed and the nature of the departmental proceeding started against him should be disclosed to him or the order of suspension should be withdrawn. An advance copy of this letter was sent to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, which was received there on the 26th August, 1964. The petitioner has stated that no reply was received so far to that petition as well. In the circumstances, the petitioner made an application for permission to proceed on leave available to him, but his prayer for leave was also refused. The petitioner was on transfer posted as Special Officer in the transport branch of the Political, General and Transport Department which has no concern with the police department and was staying at the Circuit House at Patna and in spite of that the order of suspension was continued against him. Accordingly, the petitioner finding himself without any remedy, and being aggrieved by the order of suspension, moved this Court for a writ in terms stated above.

(3.) The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar is to the effect that certain facts had come to light in regard to the conduct of the petitioner in the discharge of his duties on the 6th of July, 1964, which were brought to the notice of the Central Government. It was on foot of that information that the Central Government passed the order of suspension on the 31st July, 1964. The reason why he was transferred to Patna in the Transport Department was that his continuance as the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Southern Range, Ranchi, was considered as inexpedient and prejudicial to public interest on account of the activities of the petitioner. As to the allegation in the petition that the petitioner had no information about any departmental enquiry, it has been stated in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner was questioned by Sri S. P. Verma, Inspector-General of Police, Bihar, as early as the 8th of February. 1964, about his activities which gave an Inkling to the petitioner that his conduct in the discharge of his duties was looked upon with suspicion by the Government. The departmental enquiry and investigation against the petitioner was still going on and that was the reason why charges were not framed against him. As for the allegation contained in paragraph 9 of the petition, the instructions issued by the Government of Bihar contained in annexure B to the petition would be of no advantage to the petitioner inasmuch as he was a member of the Indian Police Service under the control of the Secretary of State for India, which control after the 15th August, 1947, came to be vested in the Central Government. As for the order of suspension itself, it was alleged that it was an interim suspension pending departmental enquiry and investigation of the petitioner's case. The order of suspension was passed by the President of India, the appointing authority of the members of the Indian Police Service, while the petitioner's leave application was pending consideration before the State Government. Leave was, however, granted to him for short periods. The stand of the petitioner that he could not be placed under suspension before a proceeding was actually started against him was also controverted as incorrect inasmuch as the present suspension was an Interim measure and not by way of punishment. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of India, opposite party No. 1, and the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs, opposite party No. 2, contains, in substance, the same facts as find place in the counter-affidavit on behalf of the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar