1953 (9) TMI 25 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds suspension as justified, distinct from rank reduction under Article 311(2).

Y. Venkateswarlu Versus State of Madras

The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the suspension was justified and did not contravene Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The preliminary ... - Issues Involved:1. Preliminary objection regarding delay in filing the writ petition.2. Validity of the suspension order under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.3. Interpretation of 'reduction in rank' under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Preliminary Objection Regarding Delay in Filing the Writ Petition:The Government Pleader raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the petitioner took an inordinate amount of time, nearly a year, to file the writ petition, which should disentitle him to any relief. The Government Pleader emphasized that applications for writs of certiorari are extraordinary remedies and should be invoked promptly. He referenced the case of 'Nathamooni Chetti v. Viswanatha Sastry,' where the court held that long delays in filing such applications could be a ground for refusal.On the other hand, the petitioner's counsel argued that the delay was due to the petitioner exhausting all departmental remedies before approaching the court. The petitioner had made several representations to higher authorities, including the Inspector General of Police and the Government, without receiving any favorable response. The court found merit in this argument, noting that the petitioner had not remained idle but had actively sought redress through departmental channels. Consequently, the court overruled the preliminary objection, stating that the delay was justified and should not by itself disentitle the petitioner from relief.2. Validity of the Suspension Order Under Article 311(2) of the Constitution:The petitioner contended that the suspension order was illegal because he was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, as required by Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that he had not been apprised of any charges before being relieved of his duties and that the suspension order was issued without following the proper procedure.The court examined the relevant provisions, including Article 309 of the Constitution and Order 98 of the Madras Police Standing Orders. It was noted that the Governor had made rules regarding the conditions of service, and the Discipline and Appeal Rules allowed for suspension pending an inquiry into grave charges. The court held that the charges against the petitioner, if proven, were indeed grave and justified his suspension in the public interest. Therefore, the procedure laid down in Order 90 did not need to be followed, and the suspension order was valid.3. Interpretation of 'Reduction in Rank' Under Article 311(2) of the Constitution:The petitioner argued that suspension amounted to a 'reduction in rank,' and thus, he should have been given an opportunity to show cause against it. He cited the Nagpur High Court's decision in 'Provincial Government, C. P. and Berar v. Syed Shamshul Hussain,' where it was held that suspension was equivalent to a reduction in rank.The court, however, disagreed with this interpretation. It referenced the Calcutta High Court's decision in 'Kali Prosanna v. State of West Bengal,' which distinguished between suspension and reduction in rank. The court explained that suspension temporarily precludes an officer from performing duties and receiving emoluments but does not degrade his status or rank permanently. Reduction in rank, on the other hand, involves a permanent demotion to a lower category or class of office.The court also cited a recent Supreme Court decision in 'Satischandra Anand v. Union of India,' which differentiated between various penalties, including suspension and reduction in rank. The Supreme Court's interpretation supported the view that suspension and reduction in rank are distinct concepts, and suspension does not require the same procedural safeguards as reduction in rank under Article 311(2).Conclusion:The court concluded that the petitioner's suspension was justified and did not violate Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The preliminary objection regarding delay was overruled, and the interpretation of 'reduction in rank' did not support the petitioner's contention. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.