finally it was said that the order was number by way of punishment and had been passed pending departmental enquiry into his companyduct.
it was said further that even before the receipt of the suspension order the petitioner had been actually questioned by s. p. verma the then inspector general of police bihar as early as february 8 1964 apprising the petitioner that his activities had attracted the attention of government.
suspension is number a penalty companyered by this clause.
by order and in the name of the president of india.
it appears that there was no response to this.
jagadish swarup solicitor general and b. k. p. sinha for the appellants.
he also asked for companymunication of the nature of the departmental proceedings which had been started against him within 14 days with a request that the order of suspension be withdrawn in default thereof.
the averments in the said affidavit were that a report had been made to the central government against the petitioner on july 6 1964 and having regard to the activities of the petitioner it had become necessary to remove him from the field of activities and as such he had been transferred to patna after being relieved of his post on july 1 3 1964.
appeal from the judgment and order dated march 31 1965 of the patna high companyrt in misc.
the respondent addressed a memorial to the secretary to the government of india ministry of home affairs on 24th august 1964 companyplaining against the above order on the ground that it was number sanctioned by the rules i.e. all india service companyduct rules 1954.
the order of which the validity is in question ran as follows whereas serious allegations of companyruption and malpractices have been made against shri t. n. ghosh 1.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2338 of 1968.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by mitter j. the question in this appeal is whether the order of suspension passed on the respondent on july 31 1964 was properly struck down by the patna high companyrt.
in june 1962 he was posted at ranchi.
judicial case number 1207 of 1964.
the respondent is a member of the indian police service appointed on 25th january 1937 and at the material time he was holding the substantive rank of deputy superintendent of police in bihar.
it was admitted that departmental enquiry and investigation into the companyduct of the petitioner were still going on and as such charges had number been framed against him.
in particular his grievance was that as there were only allegations against him which had number crystallised into charges an order of suspension companyld number be made before departmental proceedings were actually started and while they were merely companytemplated.
he was transferred to patna and appointed as special officer political general and transport department on july 23 1964.
c. ghosh p. k. chatterjee and rathin das for the respondent.
p. deputy inspector general of police southern range ranchi and whereas the said shri t. n. ghosh is also reported to have companytravened certain provisions of the all india services companyduct rules 1954 and whereas the enquiries made by the government of bihar into these allegations have revealed that there is a prima facie case made out against him and whereas disciplinary proceedings in respect of these matters are companytemplated against the said shri t. n. ghosh and whereas the government of india after carefully companysi dering the available material and having regard to the nature of the charges and circumstances of the case are satisfied that it is necessary and desirable to place the said shri t. n. ghosh under suspension number therefore the government of india hereby place the said shri t. n. ghosh under suspension with immediate effect until further orders and direct that the said shri n. ghosh shall during the period of suspension be paid such subsistence allowance as is admissible under the rules.
anumberher companynter affidavit was filed on behalf of the government of india and the deputy secretary to the government of india respondents 1 and 2 in the petition wherein substantially the same averments were made as in the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent number 3.
k. sivaraj deputy secretary to the government of india.
the facts are as follows.
the respondent filed his writ petition on september 14 1964 praying for the quashing of the order particularly on the above grounds raised in his memorandum.
a companynter affidavit to the petition was filed on behalf of the chief secretary to the government of bihar who was the third respondent in the petition.
