NATWARBHAI BECHARBHAI RATHOD Vs. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) Suspension is not a punishment and in case looking to the charges levelled against him if the petitioner is placed under suspension and where he feels that it is not a case where this power should be exercised, he should have brought all these matters to the notice of the authorities. It is not the end of the matter where the petitioner will not get any relief. After decision of the authorities on. the representation of the petitioner made in the matter and he has not been given the desired relief, the petitioner has a right to approach this Court and in case the proper case is made out the Court has wide powers to protect the petitioner if any injustice is done to him. In the present case the order of suspension has been passed by the District Superintendent of Police and in the hierarchy there are many officers above him and the petitioner could have and should have approached either the officer who made the order or the next officer to whom he is subordinate with all the grievance which he has made in this writ petition. The Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that if such grievance would have been made, then certainly the officer to whom the petitioner approached by way of filing detailed representation would have examined the same and would have passed appropriate order.

(3.) In matters where the petitioner complains that the procedure as laid down under the rules has not been followed or that the necessary conditions as laid down under the, rules for making the order of: suspension are not present, in such class of cases, though there may not be any right of appeal, it is advisable that the petitioner should have first appraised of all these irregularities and illegalities to the authority who passed the order or to the next officer to whom the said Officer is subordinate. At this stage of suspension, in contemplation of departmental inquiry or pending investigation of a criminal complaint or for both, it is difficult for this court to go into the question of sufficiency of the material to exercise the power of suspension as well as the question whether there is any material to connect the petitioner with the alleged misconduct. The matter could have been different where the challenge to the order of suspension is solely based on the mala fides of the authority who made the said order, which is not the case of the petitioner before this court in this writ petition. In the case where mala fide has not been alleged in making the order of suspension pending inquiry under sub-Rule (1-A) of Rule 3 of the Rules 1956, it is expected of the officers first to approach the department in the matter rather than to rush to this court.