JWALA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner prays (i) that the entire departmental proceeding against him; and (ii) the order of suspension dated 29-10-1971 should be quashed and the respondents be directed to forbear, from proceeding any further against him on the basis of the enquiry held by the Commissioner, Departmental Enquiries. The petition is founded on the facts hereinafter stated.

(2.) The petitioner is a member of the Bihar State Police Force having been appointed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police, on probation. For some reasons or the other, into which it is not necessary for me to delve, the petitioner was not confirmed in his office till the 7th of March, 1958. As a consequence of the petitioners delayed confirmation, his promotion to the higher ranks was also held up. The petitioner avers that he filed an application before this Court which was numbered as C. W. J. C. No. 691 of 1971 = (reported in 1973 Lab IC 1015) (Pat) in which the following prayers had been made-

(3.) On the other hand, the stand of the respondents to this application is that it was not correct to say that the departmental proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner, as the State Government was annoyed with the conduct of the petitioner in filing the writ application. It has been stated in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the allegations which formed the basis of the charges against the petitioner were being investigated by the Vigilance Department and the Inspector-General of Police and after investigation the decision was taken to place him under suspension and to start departmental proceeding against him. According to the State, the proceeding could not be started prior to October, 1971, but the charges related to the years 1963, 1964 and 1965. The allegations of facts took the final shape of charges in the year 1971 although the formalities leading to the framing of the charges against the petitioner was initiated much prior to 1971 and, therefore, it was contended by learned Government Advocate for the State that the proceeding could not be said to be mala fide by any stretch of imagination.