A K VEERAMANI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Deputy Superintendent of Police and he was functioning as an Assistant Commissioner (Crimes) on 4-2-1971. Certain incidents took place in and around the University College , Trivandrum, on that day. From the materials available in these proceedings it appears that the agitation carried on by some students of the Sanskrit College in which the other students of the Ayurveda college, and a large number of students from the University College joined, took a turn towards violence, resulting in damage to public property and injury to Police Constables who were deputed for duty on the spot on that day, as well as to others. THE petitioner too was deputed for duty on that day in relation to the above incidents and the petitioner was the senior-most Police Officer present at the scene. When the violence increased the petitioner ordered the unlawful assembly to disperse and on failure to disperse, action was taken to disperse it by use of force in the course of which the Police entered the compound of the University College and building and even went upstairs and entered certain rooms in the first floor of the building and used force. THEse occurrences are referred to in detail in the affidavit in support of the petition. But in the counter affidavit that has been filed, with commendable restraint, the State Government has refrained from joining the issue on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations contained in the affidavit, in view of an enquiry that was ordered by the State Government by Ex. P6 order in exercise of their powers conferred by S. 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 and in view, it is alleged in the counter-affidavit, of a contemplated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner relating to his conduct on 4-2-1971, though it is hinted that there are other versions of the incidents of the 4th February 1971.

(2.) ON the same day the order Ext. P6 was passed which directed an enquiry relating to the following matters: (i) whether the entry of the Police into the College campus and buildings was justified. (ii) whether the use of force by the Police was justified. Another order was passed by the Government, Ext. P7 suspending the petitioner "with immediate effect" "pending enquiry". It is this order that is impugned in this petition.

(3.) WE shall presently refer to the averments in support of this contention and the replies thereto. Before doing so, we must deal with one aspect, whether the order Ext. P7 is one passed in contemplation of any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner or is merely an order passed in exercise of the alleged inherent power directing the petitioner not to discharge his functions because such exercise would embarass the conduct of the enquiry ordered by Ext. P6. WE shall read the relevant part of the order Ext. P7.