RAJVIR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBJECT matter of impugnment in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 21-10-1993 passed by Superintendent of Police (Railways), Jhansi whereby the petitioners have been placed under suspension. The suspension order has its genesis in the institution of a criminal case in case crime No. 416 of 1993, under section 394/397 IPC pertaining to P.S, G R.P. Jhansi against the petitioners.

(2.) SRI Sudama Ji Shandilya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently urged that the suspension order is vitiated for the reason of the requirements of Rule 17 (1) (b) of U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks Rules, 1991 (in short the Rules) being observed in non-complaince, In that, urged the learned counsel, the appointing authority has not applied Its mind to the relevant factors governing the exercise of discretion vested in It under clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 17 of the said Rules.

(3.) IT is no doubt evident from the relevant rule quoted hereinbefore, that the power to place a police officer under suspension under clause (b) of sub rule (1) of Rule 17 of the Rules in discretionary but 'discretion' necessarily implies good faith and reasonableness in discharging public duties. IT cannot be gain-said that there is always a perspective within which a statute is intended to operate. Further the discretionary power under rule 17 (1) (b) Uncoupled with a legal duty cast upon the appointing authority to place under suspension a police officer in respect of or against whom enquiry etc relating to a criminal charge connected with his position as a police officer or the one which is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties of involves moral turpitude is pending. This, of course, is coupled with the duty to apply its mind to the afore-stated relevant factors governing the exercise of discretion vested in it.