DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD AND ORS. versus K. RATNAGIRI

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 233 · Decided: 30-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

"' 
-) 
DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF 
POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD AND ORS. 
v. 
K. RATNAGIRI 
MARCH 30, 1990 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND M. FATHIMABEEVI,JJ.] 
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. 
The first appellant made an order under Rule 13(1) of the A.P. 
Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1963 keeping the respondent, 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 attac}led. The respondent challenged the order before 
the State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the suspen-
sion 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. 
i 
~-
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 suspension from service pend-
ing 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 Govern-
ment where the investigation into the charges and the action proposed 
to be taken against the officer has not been completed 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, hut it 
, does not limit the period of suspension. It does not state that the suspen-
sion 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 
233 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 
A till it is revoked by an appropriate order under Rule 13(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 
B order does not take away the power if it is otherwise available. [238E] 
c 
Rule 13( I) 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 occured 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 offi-
cers and asked the first appellant to take immediate action in that 
regard. Thus, the first appellant made the order keeping the respon-
D 
dent under suspension pending prosecution against hbit. 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 
t.l( l ). The investigation commenced when the First Information Report 
was issued, and indeed it has commenced when the respondent was kept 
under suspension. [237G-H; 2388, C-DJ 
E 
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 Representation Peti-
F 
tion 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 
G 
Respondent. 
The J~udgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. Special leave granted. 
H 
The respondent in this appeal-K. Ratnagiri was at the material 
D.G.P. v. K. RATNAGIRI (SHETIY, J.I 
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 Ge
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.