Case Note & Summary
The case concerned an appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Delhi High Court, challenging an order of suspension passed against an Indian Police Service officer. The appellant, who had served as Inspector General of Police in Andhra Pradesh, was placed under suspension by the Government of India on 5 July 1968, following an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The appellant contended that the suspension order was passed under Rule 7(1) of the All-India Service (Appeal and Discipline) Rules, 1955, without any disciplinary proceeding having been initiated, and that the order was founded on a mala fide investigation initiated at the behest of the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, who was allegedly hostile to him. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined whether the order of suspension was in compliance with Rule 7. The Court found that the order did not refer to sub-rule (1) and that in the facts, an investigation and trial relating to a criminal charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, were pending against the appellant. Consequently, the suspension fell under Rule 7(3), which permits the government to place a member of the service under suspension when a criminal investigation, inquiry or trial is pending, without any requirement of a pending disciplinary proceeding. The order of suspension was upheld as a valid exercise of power under Rule 7(3). On the question of mala fides, the Court observed that the affidavits filed by both parties were unverified, rendering them inadmissible in evidence. The Court emphasized the importance of proper verification of affidavits to test the genuineness and authenticity of allegations and to hold the deponent responsible. The appellant failed to name any specific officer of the Union Government who acted mala fide and did not implead the Chief Minister as a party. The Court held that to succeed on a plea of mala fides, the appellant had to prove either that the order of suspension was made mala fide or that it was made for collateral purposes, which he failed to do. The allegations against the Central Bureau of Investigation were held irrelevant as the suspension order was made on the basis of the existence of a pending criminal charge and not on the report itself. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the suspension order was valid and not vitiated by any infirmity.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Suspension - Permissibility Under Rule 7(3) - All-India Service (Appeal and Discipline) Rules, 1955, Rule 7(3) - An order of suspension under Rule 7(3) does not require pending disciplinary proceedings; it is sufficient that an investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending. The Court upheld the suspension order as validly made under Rule 7(3) because a First Information Report and pending trial showed criminal charges against the appellant (Paras 124 D-125 B). B) Evidence - Affidavit Verification and Mala Fides - Proof of Mala Fides - General Principles of Evidence - Affidavits must be properly verified to be admissible as evidence; allegations of mala fides require strict proof that the order was made mala fide or for a collateral purpose. The appellant's unverified affidavits could not establish mala fides, and the order was not vitiated; the honesty of government exercise of powers was not impeached (Paras 125 C-E, 125 F-G, 125 H).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suspension order dated 5 July 1968 was made under Rule 7(1) of the All-India Service (Appeal and Discipline) Rules, 1955, and therefore invalid due to absence of disciplinary proceedings, and whether the order was vitiated by mala fides.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The suspension order was held to be validly made under Rule 7(3) of the All-India Service (Appeal and Discipline) Rules, 1955, as a criminal investigation and trial were pending. The plea of mala fides was rejected because the affidavits were unverified and the appellant failed to prove that the order was made mala fide or for a collateral purpose.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Suspension under Rule 7(3) of All-India Service (Appeal and Discipline) Rules
- 1955
- is permissible without initiating disciplinary proceedings if a criminal investigation or trial is pending
- discretionary suspension order not vitiated absent proof of mala fides
- affidavits must be properly verified to be admissible
- verification tests genuineness and authenticity
- burden of proving mala fides requires showing order made mala fide or for collateral purpose
- unverified affidavits insufficient to discharge burden
- government's honest exercise of power not subject to judicial review on vague allegations
- investigation report not relevant to validity of suspension if rule satisfied
