He, however, companytinued to work as Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh up to 1 August, 1967.
The affidavits which were filed in answer to the appellants petition were also number verified.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 17, 1969 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No.
On 14 May, 1966, he reached the age of 55 years.
On 1 1 July.,
The Vigilance Commissioner advised that the enquiry should be companyducted by an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The Central Bureau of Investigation thereafter made an enquiry.
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor General, R. L. Mehta and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents.
Some time in the year 1967 the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh ordered that the Chief Secretary should make an enquiry with regard to certain allegations against the appellant.
The Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India, should number have relied on the report because the initiation and the companyduct of the enquiry were motivated mala fide on the part of the Chief Minister of the State and other persons.
The appellant submitted explanation and was examined.
The Chief Secretary recommended that the Vigilance Commissioner in the State of Andhra Pradesh might be requested to look into the matter.
Neither the petition number the affidavit was verified.
The appellant was given allegations to answer.
The reason for verification of affidavits are to enable the Court to find out which facts can be said to be proved on the affidavit evidence of, rival parties.
The investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation was companyducted by persons who were hostile to the appellant.
The other companytention of the appellant was that under sub rule 1 of Rule 7 of the All India Service Appeal and Discipline Rules, 1955 the order of suspension companyld be made only if disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the Government was satisfied that there should be an order and in the present case the order did number satisfy the provisions of the rule, and therefore, the order is bad.
1968 the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs made an order placing the appellant under suspension.
He was then posted as Special Inspector General of Police for the revision of Police Standing Orders.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He was ,confirmed as Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh in the year 1957.
The Central Bureau of Investigation made a report on the enquiry.
The appellant made allegations against the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and other persons some of whose names were disclosed and some of whose names were number disclosed.
The appellant filed an affidavit in support of the petition.
The appellant alleged that the Union of India made the order of suspension because of the pressure of the Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The appellant canvassed two grounds first, that the order of suspension was passed on a report which was made mala fide, and, therefore, the order of suspension was bad secondly, the order of suspension was made under sub rule 1 of Rule 7 of the All India Service Appeal and Discipline Rules, 1955, and is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
The appellant alleged as follows.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray, J. This appeal by certificate from the judgment of the High Court at Delhi challenges the order dated 5th July, 1968 placing the appellant under suspension.
There is numberallegation against any particular officer of the Government of India about acting mala fide.
The appellant appeared in person.
611 of 1968.
The Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh was inimical and hostile to the appellant since the time of the General Elections in the year 1967.
He was posted as Inspector General of Police of the State of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 November, 1956.
The appellant was appointed to the Indian Police Service in the year 1935.
1406 of 1969.
