KAMTA PRASAD PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three petitioners hold the substantive posts of Sub -Inspector in the Department of Police but at the material time, they were on deputation in the Transport Department working as Enforcement Sub -Inspectors. By order dated 6 -1 -2001 issued by the Transport Commissioner, the three petitioners have been put under suspension w.e.f. 31. -10 -2000, the date on which they were taken into custody in connection with a police case in which they were accused of offences punishable under Secs. 7/13(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. By that order, their services have also been handed back to their parent department, namely, the Home (Police) Department, Bihar. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order in -so -far as it puts the petitioners under suspension.

(2.) THE three petitioners are accused in Lalpur P.S. Case No. 122/2000 instituted inter alia under Secs. 7/13(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to the prosecution case on 30 -10 -2000 some persons, in police uniform, seized the documents of a truck bearing registration No. AP -26D/0969 and demanded Rs. 10,000/ from the driver of the truck, a certain Pradeep Ram for the returns of the documents. As he was not in a position to pay the demanded amount, he was asked to come with the money to Apsara Hotel, Ranchi. When the driver went to the hotel he was in a position only to offer a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 but the culprits refused to return the seized documents for a sum less than Rs. 10,000.00 demanded by them. At this stage, the driver went to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi and submitted before him a written complaint. On the basis of the complaint submitted by the driver Lalpur P.S. Case No. 122/2000 was instituted inter alia under Secs. 7/13(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and it was assigned to one Aashish Batra, A.S.P. Ranchi. On 31 -10 -2000, a team of officials conducted a raid at Hotel Apsara where in room No. 43 the raiding team found the three petitioners along with one Shailendra Kumar, described as the Munshi of petitioner No. 3. On search, marked currency notes amounting to Rs. 5,000.00 were recovered from the pocket of petitioner No. 1. The documents of the truck in question and a sum of Rs. 80,550.00 was also recovered from that room. Cash amounting to Rs. 69,050.00 was recovered from room No. 45, a sum of Rs. 1,15,954.00 in cash was recovered from room No. 49 occupied by petitioner No. 2 and from room No. 52, occupied by petitioner No. 3 were recovered cash amounting to Rs. 1,54,360.00 along with the receipt books, seizure books and seized documents of a number of vehicles. All the accused (including the three petitioners) were arrested and forwarded to judicial custody. They were later released on bail.

(3.) THIS is the background in which the impugned order was issued putting the three petitioners under suspension and sending them back to their parent department. In these facts and circumstances, it would appear that the petitioners are perhaps not the most suitable and desirable persons who may invoke in their favour the extraordinary prerogative writ jurisdiction of this Court.