A. K. K. NAMBIAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 121 · Decided: 28-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

121 
A 
A. K. K. NAMBIAR 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
October 28, 1969 
B 
[J. C. SHAH; J, M. SHELAT, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, K. S. HEGDE 
c 
D 
E 
r 
G 
H 
AND A. N. RAY, JJ.] 
All India Service (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1955-Rule ?-Order 
of suspension of officer charged with criminal offence-:-Order is under 
R. 7(3) and not R. 1(1)-Ma/a fides-Proof of-Affidavits, verification of. 
The appellant was appointed to the Indian Police Service in 1935. In 
November 1956 he was posted in Andhra Pr.adesh as Inspector-General elf 
Police and in August 1967 he was posted as Special Inspector-Oeneral of 
Police for revision of Police Standing Orders. In that year the Chief 
Minister of Aodhra Pradesh ordered the Chief Secretary to make an 
enquiry with regard to certain allegations against the appellant. The Chief 
Secretary recommended that the matter be referred to the Vigilance Com-
missioner who advised that the matter be investigated 
by 
the Central 
Bureau of Investigation. 
Thereafter the said Bureau made an enquiry, 
considered the appellant's explanations and made a report. In July 1968 
the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs placed the appellant 
under suspension. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court 
at Delhi and failing there filed an appeal in this Court. The appellant's 
contentions that fell for consideration were (i) that under sub-r. (I) of 
R. 7 of the All India Service (Appeal and Discipline) Rules, 1955 
the 
order of suspension could be made only j1f disciplinary proceeding was 
initiated and the Government was satisfied that there should be an ordet; 
in the present case the order did not satisfy this condition and was there-
fore bad; (ii) that the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh was hostile to 
him and the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation was con-
ducted by persons hostile to him; the Ministry of Home Affairs should not 
have relied on the report since the enquiry was initiated and conducted 
ma/a-fide. 
HELD: (i) The order in question had no reference to sub-r. (I) of 
R. 7, but was an order under R. 7 ( 3) which states . that a member elf the 
service in respect of or against whom an investigation inquiry or trial is 
pending may, at the discretion of the Government under which he is serv-
1ag, be placed under suspension until the termination of all proceedings 
relating to the charge. The appellant, as appeared from the First Informa-
tion Report against him stood charged with offences under the Prevention 
of Corruption Act and the time of occurrence was the period 1960 to 
1967. There was an investigation and the trial was awaiting relating to 
the criminal charge against the appellant. The order of suspension had to 
be read in the context of the entire case and the combination of circums-
tances. This order indicated that the Government applied its mind ta the 
allegations, the enquiries and the circumstances of the case. The appellant 
had failed to establish that the Government acted ma/a fide. There was no 
allegation against any particular afficer af the Government of India about 
acting mala fide. The order of su&pension. thus made under sub-r. (3) did 
not suffer from any vice of infringement of R. 7(1). [124 D-125 Bl 
(ii), The affidavits of the parties in the present case suffered.from the 
misch•f of lack of verification with the result that the affidavits should 
L6 Sup. C.I./70---9 
122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] 3 S.C.R. 
not be admissible in evidence. The impbrtance of verification is to test 
A 
the genuineness and authenticity cJf allegations and also to make the dep<>-
nent responsible for allegations. 
In essence verification 
is required to 
enable the court to find out as to whether it will be safe to act on sru:h 
affidavit evidence. [125 C-E] 
The affidavit evidence assumed 
importance in the present case be· 
cause of allegations of ma/a fide acts on the part of the r .. po.ndents. ,The 
B 
appellant did not name any person of the Union of India who acted iB 
that manner and did not implead the Chief Minister as a party. Jn order 
to succeed on the proof of mala fi4es in relation to the order of suspension, 
the appellant had to prove either that the order of suspension was made 
ma/a fide or that tl!e order was made for collateral purposes. The appel-
lant had neither alleged nor established either of these features. [125 F-0] 
The allegation of ma/a fide against the central Bureau of Investigation 
C 
did not arise for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.