Telangana High Court
WP/29213/2009 of Sashikant Goshal, Vs The Deputy Commandant, on 31 December 2009
G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 29213 of 2009 Date: 31.12.2009 Between: Sashikant Goshal, Visakhapatnam. … Petitioner And The Deputy Commandant, Visakhapatnam and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 29213 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner,
HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
Writ Petition No. 29213 of 2009
Date:31.12.2009
Between:
Sashikant Goshal,Visakhapatnam.
And
… Petitioner
The Deputy Commandant,Visakhapatnam and another.
… Respondents
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
Writ Petition No. 29213 of 2009
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
The petitioner, who is working as constable in CISF filed this writpetition seeking a declaration that the 1[st] respondent’s order dated02.10.2009 placing him under suspension in exercise of powersconferred by Rule 33(1) (a) of Central Industrial Security Force Rules,2001 (for short ‘the Rules’) is arbitrary and illegal.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties andperused the material on record.
Admittedly, Crime No.214 of 2009 was registered against thepetitioner on 23.09.2009 on the file of Malkapuram Police for theoffence punishable under Section 304 (A) IPC. It appears that thepetitioner had surrendered before the police on 24.09.2009 andsubsequently he was released on bail. It is also not in dispute that oncompletion of the investigation, a charge sheet has been filed and thefurther proceedings are pending.
As per Rule 33 (1) (a) of the Rules, where a case against theenrolled member of the force in respect of criminal offence is underinvestigation, inquiry or trial, the authority is competent to place himunder suspension. Having regard to the admitted fact that acriminal case against the petitioner is under trial, I am unable to holdthat the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity.
However, learned counsel for the petitioner while relying uponRule 33(2) of the Rules, vehemently contended that respondents hadcommitted a grave error in placing the petitioner under suspension inview of the fact that the petitioner was subsequently released on bail.
In support of the said submission, the learned counsel has relied upona decision of the Culcutta High Court in SUMAN ROY CHOWDHURYV. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS[[1]]. The saiddecision, which was rendered interpreting the provisions of WBSF(CC&A) Rules, 1971, has no application to the facts of this case.
As expressed above, the impugned order has rightly beenpassed in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 33(1) (a) of theRules and does not suffer from any jurisdictional error.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Date: 31.12.2009KLP
_____________G. ROHINI,J.
[1]2007(3) SLR 809