S.A. KHAN versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 749 · Decided: 18-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

..... 
S.A. KHAN 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 18, 1992 
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] 
Civil Service: All India Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1969-
Rules 3, 4 and 16--Suspension order--<:hallenge to-Availability of statutory 
remedy of appeal-Writ Petition-Maintainability of. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 32-Suspension order 
passed by State Government on the basis of F.l.R. registered against Petitioner 
and confinned by Central Government-Validity of-Availability of statutory 
right of appeal-Writ Petition challenging orde,-Maintainability of. 
The petitioner, a Deputy Inspector General of Police filed a writ 
petition before this Court, praying for setting aside the order of suspen· 
sion passed against him and declaring it to be void ab initio and for 
hearing the petition along with the contempt petition filed by him earlier, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
and (b) an interim order suspending the operation of the order ofsuspen· 
sion, during the pendency of the hearing of the said contempt petition and E 
the writ petition. 
It was contended that the suspension order had been passed in 
male fide exercise of the discretionary power for improper purpose, for 
the reason that the petitioner had been incharge of the investigation of F 
the case of corruption registered against the Chief Minister of the State; 
that the order was patently unconstitutional and illegal, besides being 
vitiated by malice both in law and facts and that it was in gross violation 
of Article 14 of the Constitution as it had been passed by misuse of 
power in a very arbitrary and capricious manner; that after assuming 
the charge of Chief Ministership of the State, by misusing his powers, G 
the Chief Minister secured false affidavit from the complainant in the 
corruption case by rewarding him the appointment of Chairman of the 
State Khadi Board, and had suspended the petitioner with a designed 
motive of deflecting the judgment of this Court rendered in a CiviJ 
appeal before this Court. 
H 
749 
750 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it was stated that 
B. 
no fundamental right of the petitioner had been violated and, as such, the 
writ petition was not maintainable; that the suspension order, in question, 
was passed by the State Government after due consideration and in lawful 
exercise of its functions in terms of Rule 3(3) of the All India Services 
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 and the order had been confirmed by 
the Government of India under Rule 3(1)(b) of the Rules; that the said 
Rule p~ovided remedy to the ~fficers concerned by filing an appeal under 
Rule 16 of the Rules and therefore the writ petition was misconceived 
because of the availability of statutory remedy provided under the Rules, 
that the investigation pursuant to the order of this Court made in the civil 
C appeal was finally completed when the State was under the President's 
Rule; that as no proof was found to establish the. allegations, a cancella-
tion report was sent to the Court which had been accepted and that, 
therefore, the order of this Court made in the civil appeal was neither 
nullified nor any attempt had been made to stultify the jurisdiction of this 
D Court, that the suspension order was passed so that free and fair inves-
tigation could be carried on in the cases registered against the petitioner 
and had no connection with the Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner 
before this Court; and that it was neither violative of Articles 14 and 16 of. 
the Constitution nor opposed to any valid .law or rules. 
E 
F 
G 
Dismissing the writ petition, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. The order of suspension does not either expressly or 
impliedly or even remotely spell out that the petitioner was suspended for 
having been incharge of the investigation of the corruption case or for 
having taken· active role in the. proceedings of the case. The suspension 
order has been confirmed by the Central Government in exercise of its 
powers under Rule 3(1)(b) of the Rules. The Rules provide a remedy to 
the officer concerned by preferring a statutory appeal under Rule 16 of the 
Rules. (762-C,D] 
1.2. It is not possible to accept that in view of the quick succession 
of events, viz., that the very next day after the respondent became the Chief 
Minister, the petitioner was transferred, without being given any place of 
posting and after five days he w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.