SUNDARESHAN Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions the petitioners who are Police Constables, have questioned the legality of the order by which they have been suspended pending departmental enquiry ordered against them.

(2.) It is not the case of the petitioners that the Superintendent of Police, who has passed the order is not the competent authority to pass the order. The contents of the order indicate that as departmental enquiry has been ordered against the petitioners in connection with the allegations referred to in the impugned order the authority considered that the petitioners should be placed under suspension pending enquiry.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that rules of natural justice demand that before placing a civil servant under suspension pending enquiry, the civil servant should be given an opportunity of making representation against the making of an order placing him under suspension. In support of the contention, learned counsel relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in Rajeswara Sayanna v. State of Maharashtra (1983) 1 All. Ind. Ser. L.J. 484. Learned Counsel pointed out that in that case, though a charge sheet had been filed against the petitioner therein, before the court for offenses under Ss. 323, 448, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C., the order of suspension made against him was set aside on the ground that he was not given a hearing before passing the order of suspension and that the ratio of the decision fully supports his contention.