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