KESHARI PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal has been preferred against the order passed by a learned Single Judge dated November 23, 1994 in Writ Petition No. 1292 S/S of 1994 dismissing the writ petition preferred by the Petitioner against the order of his suspension dated March 16, 1994.

(2.) A perusal of the order of suspension indicates that it has been passed under Rule 134 (c) due to pendency of investigation in a criminal case against the Petitioner. At present, it is at the trial stage as informed by the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that looking to the language, as used in Rule 134 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), it is clear that a discretion is vested in a superior officer, in the matter of placing a member of the Force under suspension. It is not necessary that a member must in all cases be placed under suspension, in a routine manner whenever a disciplinary proceeding is pending or contemplated against him or any investigation, inquiry or criminal trial is pending. According to the submission made, it is only in appropriate cases that suspension would normally be resorted to. We find force in the submission made on behalf of the Appellant in view of the provisions contained in Rule 135 of the rules. It provides that public interest shall be the guiding factor in deciding whether or not a member of the Force should be placed tinder suspension. The first proviso to Rule 135 provides that before taking a decision, the authority may consider whether purpose would be served, if member is transferred from his post. Thus the use of the word 'may' in Rule 134 and the guideline provided in Rule 135 in the matter of taking a decision before placing a member under suspension, makes it clear that the power is not to be exercised mechanically but a decision has to be taken in exercise of discretion according to the guidance as provided under Rule 135. in connection with the above, the learned Counsel for the Appellant further submits that the charge against the Petitioner is not such that there would be involvement of any question of moral turpitude. It is submitted that it was a quarrel Between women folk of two neighbours resulting in the incident and two cross reports were lodged and the charge-sheet against the Petitioner is only under Section 147/452/336/323/504/506, I.P.C. It is submitted that such disputes cannot be said to be involving any question of moral turpitude. The submission is that suspension can be resorted to by any superior officer only in such criminal cases pending enquiry, investigation or trial which involved moral turpitude. Proviso 3 to Rule 135 of the Rules throws light on this aspect of the matter. We feel it would be better to quote the provision as contained in Rules 134 and 135 which read as follows: