Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OFPOLICE, ANDHRA P
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K. RATNAGIRI
DATE OF JUDGMENT30/03/1990
BENCH:
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
BENCH:
SHETTY, K.J. (J)
FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J)
CITATION:
1990 AIR 1423 1990 SCR (2) 233
1990 SCC (3) 60 JT 1990 (3) 379
1990 SCALE (1)625
ACT:
Civil Services: A.P. Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1963:
Rule 13(1) and Proviso-Scope of--Order of suspension pending
investigation-Whether limited to six months--Whether invalid
for using a wrong word.
HEADNOTE:
The first appellant made an order under Rule 13(1) of
the A.P. Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1963 keeping the re-
spondent, a Police Inspector, under suspension pending
prosecution against him in the case of death of a person in
lock-up in the Police Station to which the respondent was
attached. The respondent challenged the order before the
State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the
suspension order, holding that the order became invalid
after six months since the Government had not made a fresh
order extending the period of suspension, and that the first
appellant had no power to suspend the respondent pending
prosecution against him. Hence the appeal, by Special Leave.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1.1 Rule 13(1) of the A.P. Civil Service (CCA)
Rules, 1963 provides power tO keep an officer under suspen-
sion from service pending investigation or enquiry into
grave charges, where such suspension is necessary in the
public interest. Proviso thereunder requires the authority
who made the order of suspension to report to the Government
where the investigation into the charges and the action
proposed to be taken against the officer has not been com-
pleted within the period of six months from the date of
suspension. Upon receipt of the report, the Government may
make such orders as they deem fit having regard to the
circumstances or development in the case. Proviso thus
imposes only an obligation on the authority to report to the
Government, but it does not limit the period of suspension.
It does not state that the suspension order comes to an end
by the end of six months. The suspension order is not an
interim suspension. Nor Rule 13(1) limits its operation only
for six months. The order of suspension once made will
continue
234
till it is revoked by an appropriate order under Rule 13(5).
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
[236B-D]
Government of A.P.v. Sivaraman, Civil Appeal No. 1064 of
1990, decided on January 12, 1990, referred to.
1.2 It is a well-accepted principle that a wrong wording
in the order does not take away the power if it is otherwise
available. [238E]
Rule 13(1) empowers the authority to keep the respondent
under suspension pending investigation or enquiry into the
criminal charges. When the First Information Report was
issued registering the offence of murder, names of the
accused could not be mentioned since there was no authentic
information as to how the death occurred and who were
responsible for it. However, after the Commission of Inquiry
submitted its report, indicting certain police officials
including the respondent, the State Government decided to
initiate prosecution against the officers and asked the
first appellant to take immediate action in that regard.
Thus, the first appellant made the order keeping the re-
spondent under suspension pending prosecution against him.
Merely because the word ’prosecution’ has been used instead
of ’investigation’, the order of suspension cannot be said
to be beyond the scope of Rule 13(1). The investigation
commenced when the First Information Report was issued, and
indeed it has commenced when the respondent was kept under
suspension. [237G-H; 238B, C-D]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1659 of
1990.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12. 1987 of the
Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in Repre-
sentation Petition No. 3339 of 1987.
K. Madhava Reddy, T.V.S.N. Chari, Ms. Sunita Rao and Ms.
Manjula Gupta for the Appellants.
H.S. Guru Raja Rao, Vimal Dave and B. Rajeshwar Rao for
the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. Special leave granted.
The respondent in this appeal--K. Ratnagiri was at the
material
235
time Circle Inspector of Police attached to Sanjeeva Reddy
Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. In that police station one
U. Narasimha died in Police lock up. Pending prosecution
with regard to that offence, the Director General of Police
made an order keeping the respondent under suspension. The
order reads:
"Shri K. Ratnagiri, Circle Inspector of Police, Sanjiva
Reddy Nagar P.S. Hyderabad is placed under suspension with
immediate effect in public interest until further orders
pending prosecution against him in the case of death of U.
Narasimha in Police lock-up".
The respondent appealed to the Andhra Pradesh Adminis-
trative Tribunal. The Tribunal has set aside the suspension
order holding that the respondent shall be deemed to be in
service from the date of issue of suspension order. The
Tribunal, however, has reserved liberty to the Government to
transfer him to any other Police Station. It has been held
that the order of suspension becomes invalid after the
period of six months since the Government did not make a
fresh order extending the period of suspension. It has been
further stated that the Director General has no power to
keep the respondent under suspension pending investigation
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
of the case against him. Both these conditions are rested
solely on the scope of Rule 13(1) of the A.P. Civil Service
(CCA) Rules, 1963. For immediate reference we may set out
the Rule hereunder:
13(1) A member of service may be placed under
suspension from service pending investigation or enquiry
into grave ’charges, where such suspension is necessary in
the public interest.
Provided that where a member of a service has been suspended
by an authority other than the Government and the investiga-
tion has not been completed and the action proposed to be
taken in regard to him has not been completed within a
period of six months of the date of suspension, the fact
shall be reported to the Government, for such orders as they
may deem fit.
13.2 to 13.4 xxx xxx xxx
13(5) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been
made under this rule may, at any time, be revoked by
236
the authority which made or is deemed to have been made the
order or by any authority to which that authority is subor-
dinate."
Rule 13(1) provides power to keep an officer under suspen-
sion from service pending investigation or enquiry into
grave charges, where such suspension is necessary in the
public interest. Proviso thereunder requires the authority
who made the order of suspension to report to the Government
where the investigation into the charges and the action
proposed to be taken against the officer has not been com-
pleted within the period of six months from the date of
suspension. Upon receipt of the report, the Government may
make such orders as they deem fit having regard to the
circumstances or development in the case. Proviso thus
imposes only an obligation on the authority to report to the
Government, but it does not limit the period of suspension.
It does not state that the suspension order comes to an end
by the end of six months. It may be noted that the suspen-
sion order is not an interim suspension. Nor the Rule 13(1)
limits its operation only for six months. Rule 13(5) pro-
vides that the order of suspension may, at any time, be
revoked by the authority who made or is deemed to have been
made the order or by any authority to which that authority
is subordinate. That apparently suggests that the order of
suspension once made will continue to operate till it is
revoked by an appropriate order. Therefore, there appears to
be no justification to contend that the order of suspension
would not last beyond six months. It has been passed by the
competent authority who shall report to the Government if
the action is not completed within six months. The Govern-
ment may review the case and make further or other order but
the order of suspension will continue to operate till it is
rescinded by an appropriate authority.
Similar was the view expressed by this Court in Civil
Appeal No. 1064 of 1990 in Government of A.P.v.V. Sivaraman,
disposed of on 12 January 1990 to which one of us was a
party (K. Jagannatha Shetty). There it was observed:
"Where the rules provide for suspending a Civil servant and
require thereof to report the matter to the Government
giving out reasons for not completing the investigation or
enquiry within six months, it would be for the Government to
review the case but it does not mean that the suspension
beyond six months becomes automatically invalid or non est.
The only duty enjoined by such a rule is that the officer
237
who made the order of suspension must make a report to the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
Government and it would be for the government to review the
facts and circumstances of the case to make a proper order.
It is open to the Government to make an order revoking the
order of suspension or further continuing the suspension.
The Order of suspension however, continues until it is
revoked in accordance with the law."
It was also observed:
"That the order of suspension will continue till it is
revoked, though it is necessary to review the case once in
six months in the light of the instruction 18 contained in
Appendix VI of the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1963 and the circular
of the Chief Secretary dated February 13, 1989."
The opposite view taken by the tribunal in the instant
case therefore, cannot be sustained.
This brings us to the second conclusion reached by the
Tribunal to invalidate the order of suspension. Precisely,
it is also rested on the statutory framework of Rule 13(I)
coupled with the terms of the order by which the respondent
was kept under suspension. The Tribunal has observed that
Rule 13(1) empowers the authority to make an order of sus-
pension pending investigation or enquiry into charges, but
not pending prosecution with regard to the charges.
It seems to us that the Tribunal has taken a hypertech-
nical view of the matter. The factual background of the case
may now be shortly stated: On 10 July 1986, U. Narasimha
died in the police custody of Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police
Station where the respondent was then working as a Circle
Inspector of Police. Next day morning the infuriated mob
attacked the Police Station and there was similar attack at
the Bodabanda Outpost in whose limits Narasimha was resid-
ing. On the same day, a First Information Report was issued
registering the offence of murder but without mentioning the
name of any accused. The accused could not be named since
there was then no authentic information as to how U. Nara-
simha died and who were responsible for his unnatural death.
In order to clear the mist surrounding the incident, on 19
July 1986 the State Government constituted a Commission of
Inquiry under Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act,
1952 (Central Act 60 of 1952). Shri A.D.V. Reddy, retired
Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was constituted as
a Single Member
238
of the Commission of Inquiry. The Commission was asked to
find out the circumstances leading to the lock-up death of
U. Narasimha and to identify the person, if any, responsible
for the incident. The Commission was also required to point
out lapses on the part of any authority or person or per-
sons, in connection with that incident. On 29 November 1986
the Commission submitted its report indicating certain
police officials including the respondent. It was inter alia
observed that the respondent and other police officials have
mercilessly beaten and tortured U. Narasimha and that has
resulted in his lock-up death. It has been further observed
that the officials were also responsible for certain other
offences like illegal detention of the deceased, disrobing
of Smt. Chandrakala, the wife of the deceased, house tres-
pass, misappropriation etc. The Government after examining
the report, has accepted it and decided to initiate prosecu-
tion against the officers. The Director General of Police
was asked to take immediate action in that regard. There
then the Director General of Police made the order keeping
the respondent under suspension pending prosecution against
him. The Rule 13(1) empowers the authority to keep the
respondent under suspension pending investigation or enquiry
into the criminal charges where such suspension is necessary
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
in the public interest. When the first information report is
issued, the investigation commences and indeed it has com-
menced when the respondent was kept under suspension. The
order of suspension cannot, therefore, be said to be beyond
the scope of Rule 13(1) merely because it has used the word
’prosecution’ instead of investigation into the charges
against the respondent. A wrong wording in the order does
not take away the power if it is otherwise available. The
tribunal seems to have ignored this well accepted principle.
In stating this conclusion, we do not of course express
any opinion about the need to make a fresh order of suspen-
sion. We however make it clear that the original order of
suspension need not be given effect to since the respondent
has already been reinstated into service and transferred to
some other station.
The appeal is accordingly allowed setting aside the
order of the Tribunal.
N.P.V. Appeal
allowed.
239