(1.) Heard Counsel for the Petitioner and Standing Counsel. As the Counsel for the parties consented, the writ petition is decided finally at the admission stage itself.
(2.) Bereft of the detail facts as averred in the writ petition, the Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 4.2.2011 passed by the opposite party No. 1, has filed the instant writ petition inter alia on the grounds that the Petitioner cannot be penalized for the vicarious liability for the duties, which has been performed by the inferior officers and secondly that the impugned order of suspension has been passed on whims without applying proper mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.
(3.) This Court while entertaining the writ petition on 3.5.2011, directed the State Counsel to obtain instructions and produce relevant record. In compliance of the order of the Court, the relevant record has been produced which we have examined. On examination, we did not find that the Petitioner was the Investigating Officer of the case. Infact the investigation of the case crime No. 718 of 2010 was entrusted to a Sub-Inspector. Undoubtedly, Petitioner is a Deputy Superintendent of Police and his role is supervisory in nature. It is also not disputed by the State Counsel that the Petitioner was on sanctioned leave for 12 days when the incident dated 24.11.2010 occurred When confronted, whether member of general public or the victim made any complaint against the the lackadaisical attitude of the police officers and in particular against the Petitioner with regard to irregularities in conducting investigation, State Counsel, failed to produce any documentary evidence.