
Notice to UT
Administration on cops' suspension
Tribune
News Service
CHANDIGARH, May 13
Three Chandigarh policemen Inspector P.K.
Dhawan, Sub Inspector Balhar Singh and Head Constable
Yash Pal today questioned their suspension in the
controversial missing files case before the local Bench
of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Mr J.S. Dhaliwal and Mr
V.K. Majotra, before whom their joint application came up
for hearing, issued notice to the Chandigarh
Administration for May 18.
Counsel for these cops
told the tribunal that Mr Dhawan had a service record of
27 years and he was recommended for the President's
Police Medal for 1999. Similarly Sub Inspector Balhar
Singh and Head Constable Yash Pal had put in 30 years and
19 years unblemished service respectively in the
Chandigarh Police.
Counsel asserted that
the Home Secretary did not have the power to order
suspension of these police officials. In the case of
Inspectors the appointing authority is the
Inspector-General of Police, while the appointing
authority of Sub Inspectors and Head Constables is the
SSP. Therefore, the suspension could be ordered only by
the Inspector-General in the case of Mr Dhawan and by the
SSP in the case of the Sub Inspector and Head Constable.
In support of his contention, counsel quoted rule 16,17
of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to cops
of the Chandigarh Administration.
Counsel further
clarified that suspension was ordered under Rule 16,18.
This rule does not specify who is competent to order the
suspension. It only deals with how can a person be
suspended. The rules further envisage that unnecessary
suspension should be avoided.
The FIRs about the two
missing files were registered way back in 1993 and 1994.
These cases were untraced. In 1999 no one could have any
motive to misplace the files or to reconstruct the files.
The reason was that it would help none and damage none.
Counsel contended that
the entire record was in the custody of the
administration now. The purpose of suspension, as a
matter of rule, is ordered to keep the persons away so
that he could not tamper it. Since the files were already
in the custody of the administration, there was not even
a remote possibility of the record being tampered with.
Therefore, the suspension of these cops was an exercise
in futility. In fact their suspension was punitive in
nature which could not be ordered without affording them
an opportunity.
During his argument the
counsel stated that the Supreme Court and the High Court
repeatedly ruled that suspension should not be resorted
to lightly. It should be sparingly resorted to because it
caused irreparable damage to one's reputation.
SEs challenge dismissal
The local Bench of the
tribunal issued notice to the Chandigarh Administration
for May 17 on two applications moved by Mr A.K. Gupta and
Mr Surjit Singh, Superintending Engineer (Current duty
charge) and Sub-Divisional Engineer, respectively,
contesting their dismissal from service on May 10.
Mr J.S. Dhaliwal and Mr
V.K. Majotra, before whom the applications came up for
hearing, also issued notice to the administration on
applications moved by Mr Gupta and Mr Surjit Singh,
seeking a stay of the dismissal order.
In their applications
they stated that the dismissal orders issued by the
administration were illegal and unjust. The orders were
violative of the Article 320(3) (C) of the Constitution
read with Rule 13 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment
and Appeal) Rules, 1970, as applicable to employees of
the Chandigarh Administration. Rule 13 requires that
before imposing any major penalty on a class I officer,
the administration has to seek the permission of the
Union Public Service Commission. Since no categorical
permission from the UPSC was obtained, the dismissal
orders were void ab initio.
The applicants also
questioned the circular dated March 16, 1999, issued by
the administration saying that "no reference is
required to be made to the commission, as in terms of the
Union Public Service Commission (Exemption from
consultation) Regulation read with Article 320(c)(C) of
the Constitution, consultation with the commission is
necessary only where the President of India has to pass
an order in original in a disciplinary case". This
is only an executive order which cannot override the
rules, the applicants argued.
|