Full Judgment
a) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of suspension dated 5.10.2006 (annexure-1) as it is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
b) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to post the petitioner at the earlier place of posting treating the transfer to be illegal and arbitrary as it is against the provision of law and the rules and in view of the Supreme Court's order and direction passed in the case of Prakash Singh Versus Union of India reported in 2006(8) SCC 1.
c) For a direction / order to the respondent no.4 not to proceed with the proposed departmental proceeding as suspension itself is illegal and against the provision of law and without jurisdiction.
d) Any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioners are very much entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case and under the eye of law.
2. In substance, the petitioner was suspended on the allegation that a dacoity was committed in the area of petitioner where he was posted as the S.H.O. of the police station. While investigating the said matter, he minimised the offence under Sections 380 and 458 IPC. The petitioner was suspended by the S.P. Hazaribagh. Thereafter, the inquiry was instituted against the petitioner and charges were framed. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred this Writ Petition and this Court, on 26.2.2007, stayed operation of the impugned order dated 5.10.2006 till further orders.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the suspension order has been passed by Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh and S.P. Hazaribagh had no jurisdiction to suspend an officer having rank of the Inspector of Police. He further contended that the impugned order is against the provisions of law.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State refuted the contention and contended that the impugned suspension order was passed on 5.10.2006 by the S.P. Hazaribagh. At that time, the post of Deputy Inspector General, Hazaribagh was vacant and Inspector General, Bokaro was the in-charge of D.I.G. rank at Hazaribagh. The papers were immediately moved after the suspension to the Inspector General, Bokaro and the approval, which is said to have been obtained on 10.10.2006 regarding the suspension of the petitioner and was sent to the S.P. on 23.11.2006. Learned counsel further contended that the approval has been obtained for seeking the suspension of the petitioner, as such, the S.P., Hazaribagh was competent to pass the suspension order.
5. The relevant Rule-840 (a) of the Jharkhand Police Manual Vol.-I which is applicable in this case is as under:-
"Rule 840 (a). The Inspector General, Deputy Inspector General and Superintendent can suspend any of his subordinate officers of and below the rank of Inspector, but in respect on inspector only the Superintendent will have to obtain the prior permission of Deputy Inspector General. Suspension is authorized only in cases in which the continuance on duty of an officer pending enquiry into his conduct is prejudicial to public interests. When however an officer is believed to have been guilty of giving false evidence in court he should not be suspended on that account, until the court has pronounced judgment since his suspension might have the appearance of an attempt to prejudice the decision of the case. If in such a case it appears to be contrary to public interest to keep him on duty, he should be transferred to other duty without loss of pay."
Perusal of the said Rule clearly provides that the Inspector General, Deputy Inspector General and Superintendent can suspend any subordinate officer of and below the rank of Inspector but in respect of Inspector only, the Superintendent will have to obtain the prior permission of the Deputy Inspector General of the area. Thus, it is clearly provided in the said Rule that when the S.P. of the district passes the suspension order, he must have to obtain the prior permission of the D.I.G. of the range. Appendix 84 of Jharkhand Police Manual Vol.3, provides the list of the competent authorities, to pass order for punishment and suspension to the appointed officer. Regarding the inspector, it is provided that I.G. or D.I.G. can suspend an Inspector. Perusal of Rule-840 (a) Vol.1 as well as Appendix 84 Vol.3 of the Jharkhand Police Manual clearly reveals that the S.P. can only suspend an inspector after obtaining the prior permission of the D.I.G. There is no such provisions in the Rules that the ex- post-facto sanction for the suspension of Inspector can be obtained from D.I.G. after suspension was made by S.P. Learned counsel appearing for the State could not demonstrate that after passing order of suspension, the approval of the D.I.G. after suspending the inspector is valid. Apart from that, I.G. Bokaro has also mentioned in Annexure-2 to the application that the S.P. has no power to suspend an Inspector. In view of the above, no prior permission has been obtained for seeking the suspension of the Inspector. The suspension order has been passed by the S.P. Hazaribagh without jurisdiction , as such, the order is liable to be quashed.
6. The petitioner has also sought a direction not to proceed with the proposed departmental inquiry as the suspension is illegal. It is settled position of law that the suspension is a separate aspect of the proceeding in the departmental proceedings. Suspension can be made in contemplation of the departmental inquiry or if inquiry has already been initiated against the employee, he can be suspended during the inquiry. It is alleged that an inquiry has proceeded against the petitioner separately and merely the suspension order being passed without jurisdiction would not vitiate the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner by the Department. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not pressed the prayer for relief-B of the petition.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order of suspension dated 5.10.2006 contained in Annexure-1 of the writ petition is hereby quashed and the departmental inquiry against the petitioner would proceed. It is however made clear that if the authorities want to suspend him again, this Order will not come into way of passing such order. This petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.