Holding

A suspension order made under Rule 13(1) remains valid beyond six months and is not invalidated by a wording error such as using "prosecution" instead of "investigation".

Summary

The Director General of Police suspended Circle Inspector K. Ratnagiri pending prosecution for the death of a detainee in police lock‑up. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal set aside the suspension, holding it invalid after six months and that the DGP lacked authority to suspend pending prosecution. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined Rule 13(1) of the A.P. Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1963, and held that the proviso requiring a report to the Government after six months does not limit the duration of suspension, which continues until revoked under Rule 13(5). The Court also ruled that a mis‑wording in the order ("prosecution" instead of "investigation") does not defeat the power conferred by the rule. Consequently, the suspension order was deemed valid, though the respondent had already been reinstated, and the Tribunal’s order was set aside.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 13(1) of the A.P. Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1963 limits a suspension order to a period of six months.
Whether the use of the word "prosecution" instead of "investigation" renders the suspension order beyond the scope of Rule 13(1).
Whether the Director General of Police has authority to suspend a police officer pending prosecution.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1963s. 13(1), s. 13(5)
Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952s. 3

Subjects

suspensioncivil service rulesinvestigationprosecutionwrongful wordingadministrative lawpublic interestpolicelock‑up death

Judgment

DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
A
POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD AND ORS.
v.
K. RATNAGIRI

MARCH 30, 1990
B
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND M. FATHIMABEEVI,JJ.]

Civil Services: A.P. Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1963: Rule 13( 1)
and Proviso-Scope of-Order of suspension pending investigation-
"'
-) Whether limited to six months-Whether invalid for using a wrong
word.
c
The first appellant made an order under Rule 13(1) of the A.P.
Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1963 keeping the respondent, a Police
Inspector, under suspension pending prosecution against him in the
case of death of a person in lock-up in the Police Station to which the
respondent was attac}led. The respondent challenged the order before D
the State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the suspen-
sion order, holding that the order became invalid after six months since
the Government had not made a fresh order extending the period of
suspension, and that the first appellant had no power to suspend the
respondent pending prosecution against him. Hence the appeal, by
Special Leave. E
i ~- Allowing the appeal, this Court,

HELD: 1.1 Rule 13(1) of the A.P. Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1963
provides power to keep an officer under suspension from service pend-
ing investigation or enquiry into grave charges, where such suspension F
is necessary in the public interest. Proviso thereunder requires the
authority who made the order of suspension to report to the Govern-
ment where the investigation into the charges and the action proposed
to be taken against the officer has not been completed within the period
of six months from the date of suspension. Upon receipt of the report,
the Government may make such orders as they deem fit having regard to G
the circumstances or development in the case. Proviso thus imposes
only an obligation on the authority to report to the Government, hut it
, does not limit the period of suspension. It does not state that the suspen-
sion order comes to an end by the end of six months. The suspension
order is not an interim suspension·. Nor Rule 13(1) limits its operation
only for six months. The order of suspension once made will continue H

233
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

A till it is revoked by an appropriate order under Rule 13(5). [236B-D]

Government of A.P. v. Sivaraman, Civil Appeal No. 1064 of
1990, decided on January 12, 1990, referred to.

1.2 It is a well-accepted principle that a wrong wording In the
B order does not take away the power if it is otherwise available. [238E]

Rule 13( I) empowers the authority to keep the respondent under
suspension pending investigation or enquiry into the criminal charges.
When the First Information Report was issued registering the offence
of murder, names of the accused could not be mentioned since there was
no authentic information as to how the death occured and who were
c responsible for it. However, after the Commission of Inquiry submitted
its report, indicting certain police officials including the respondent,
the State Government decided to initiate prosecution against the offi-
cers and asked the first appellant to take immediate action in that
regard. Thus, the first appellant made the order keeping the respon-
D dent under suspension pending prosecution against hbit. Merely
because the word 'prosecution' has been used instead of 'investigation',
the order of suspension cannot be said to be beyond the scope of Rule
t.l( l ). The investigation commenced when the First Information Report
was issued, and indeed it has commenced when the respondent was kept
under suspension. [237G-H; 2388, C-DJ
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1659
of 1990.

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12.1987 of the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in Representation Peti-
F tion No. 3339 of 1987.

K. Madhava Reddy, T.V.S.N. Chari, Ms. Sunita Rao and
Ms. Manjula Gupta for the Appellants.

H.S. Guru Raja Rao, Vimal Dave and B. Rajeshwar Rao for the
G Respondent.

The J~udgment of the Court was delivered by

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. Special leave granted.

H The respondent in this appeal-K. Ratnagiri was at the material
D.G.P. v. K. RATNAGIRI (SHETIY, J.I 235

time Circle Inspector of Police attached to Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar
Police Station, Hyderabad. In that police station one U. Narasimha A
died in Police lock up. Pending prosecution with regard to that
offence, the Director General of Police made an order keeping the
respondent under suspension. The order reads:

"Shri K. Ratnagiri, Circle Inspector of Police, Sanjiva B
Reddy Nagar P.S. Hyderabad is placed under suspension
with immediate effect in public interest until! further orders
pending prosecution against him in the case of death of
U. Narasimha in Police lock-up".

The respondent appealed to the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal. Th~ Tribunal has set aside the suspension order holding that c
the respondent shall be deemed to be in service from the date of issue
of suspension order. The Tribunal, however, has reserved liberty to the
Government to transfer him to any other Police Station. It has been
held that the order of suspension becomes invalid after the period of
six months since the Government did not make a fresh order extending D
the period of suspension. It has been further stated that the Director
General has no power to keep the respondent under suspension pend-
ing investigation of the case against him. Both these conditions are
rested solely on the scope of Rule 13(1) of the A.P. Civil Service
(CCA) Rules, 1963. For immediate reference we may set out the Rule
hereunder: E

"13( I) A member of service may be placed under suspen-
sion from service pending investigation or enquiry into
grave charges, where such suspension is necessary in the
public interest.
F
Provided that where a member of a service has been
suspended by an authority other than the Government and
the investigation has not been completed and the action
proposed to be taken in regard to him has not been comp-
leted within a period of six months of the date of suspen-
sion, the fact shall be reported to the Government, for such G
orders as they may deem fit.

13.2 to 13.4 xxx xxx xxx

13(5) An order of suspension made or deemed to have
been made under this rule may, at any time, be revoked by H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1990] 2 S.C.R.
the authority which made or is deemed to have been made ~
.A
the order or by any authority to which that authority is
subordinate."

Rule 13( 1) provides power to keep an officer under suspension from
service pending investigation or enquiry into grave charges, where
B such suspension is necessary in the public interest. Proviso thereunder
requires the ·authority who made the order of suspension to report to
the Government where the investigation into the charges and the
actih~n prhoposed tdo bfe taken againsft the officer hasfnot been completed
wit m t e peno o six months rom the date o suspension. Upon
t
receipt of the report, the Government may make such orders as they
deem fit having regard to the circumstances or development in the
c case. Proviso thus imposes only an obligation on the authority to
report to the Government, but it does not limit the period of suspen-
sion. It does not state that the suspension order comes to an end by the
end of six months. It may be noted that the suspension order is not an __..
interim suspension. Nor the Rule B( 1) limits its operation only for six
D months. Rule 13(5) provides that the order of suspension may, at any
time, be revoked by the authority who made or is deemed to have been
made the order or by any authority to which that authority is sub-
ordinate. That apparently suggests that the order of suspension once
made will continue to operate till it is revoked by an appropriate
order. Therefore, there appears to be no justification to contend that
E the order of suspension would not last beyond six months. It has been )
passed by the competent authority who shall report to the Government
if the action is not completed within six months. The Government may
review the case and make further or other order but the order of
suspension will continue to operate till it is rescinded by an appro-
priate authority. -'
F
Similar was the view expressed by this Court in Civil Appeal
No. 1064 of 1990 in Government of A.P. v. V. Sivaraman, disposed of ~
on 12 January 1990 to which one of us was a party (K. Jagannatha
Shetty ). There it was observed:

G "Where the rules provide for suspending a Civil servant
and require thereof to report the matter to the Governme.nt
giving out reasons for not completing the investigation or
enquiry within six months, it would be for the Government
to review the case but it does not mean that the suspension
beyond six months becomes automatically invalid or non
H est. The only duty enjoined by such a rule is that the officer
D.G.P. v. K. RATNAG!Rl (SHETTY. J.J 237

who made the order of suspension must make a report to
A
the Government and it would be for the government to
review the facts and circumstances of the case to make a
proper order. It is open to the Government to make an
order revoking the order of suspension or further continu-
ing the suspension. The Order of suspension however, con-
tinues until it is revoked in accordance with the law." B

It was also observed:

"That the order of suspension will continue till it is
revoked, though it is necessary to review the case once in
six months in the light of the instruction 18 contained in
Appendix VI of the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1963 and the C
circular of the Chief Secretary dated February 13, 1989.,.

The opposite view taken by the tribunal in the instant case there-
J•--- fore, cannot be sustained.
D
This brings us to the second conclusion reached by the Tribunal
to invalidate the order of suspension. Precisely, it is also rested on the
statutory framework of Rule 13( J) coupled with the terms of the order
by which the respondent was kept under suspension. The Tribunal has
observed that Rule 13( J) empowers the authority to make an order of
suspension pending investigat.ion or enquiry into charges, but not E
>--.. pending prosecution with regard to the charges.

It seems to us that the Tribunal has taken a hypertechnical view
of the matter. The factual background of the case may now be shortly
~
stated: On JO July 1986, U. Narasimha died in the police custody of
(_ Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station where the respondent was then F
working as a Circle Inspector of Police. Next day morning the
infuriated mob attacked the Police Station and there was similar attack
....:...-"·
at the Bodabanda Outpost in whose limits Narasimha was residing. On
the same day, a First Information Report was issued registering the
offence of murder but without mentioning the name of any accused.
The accused 'could not be named since there was then no authentic G
information as to how U. Nar"-'i"!'ha died and who were responsible
for his unnatural death. In order to clear the mist surrounding the
incident, on 19 July 1986 the State Government constituted a Commis-
y sion of Inquiry under Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act,
1952 (Central Act 60 of 1952). Shri A.D.V. Reddy, retired Judge of
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh was constituted as a Single Member H
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I 1990] 2 S.C.R.

A of the Commission of Inquiry. The Commission was asked to find out
the circumstances leading to the lock-up death of U. Narasimha and to
identify the person, if any, responsible for the incident. The Commis-
sion was also required to point out lapses on the part of any authority
or person or persons, in connection with that incident. On 29
November 1986 the Commission submitted its report indicating certain
B police officials including the respondent. It was inter alia observed that
the respondent and otheLpolice officials have mercilessly beaten and
tortured U. Narasimha and that has resulted in his lock-up death. It
has been further observed that the officials were also responsible for
certain other offences like. illegal detention of the deceased, disrobing
of Smt. Chandrakala, the wife of the deceased, house trespass, misap-
c propriation etc. The Government after examining the report, has
accepted it and decided to initiate prosecution against the officers. The
Director General of Police was asked to take immediate action in that
regard. There then the Director General of Police made the order
keeping the respondent under suspension pending prosecution against
him. The Rule i3(J) empowers the authority to keep the respondent
D under suspension pending investigation or enquiry into the criminal
charges where such suspension is necessary in the public interest.
When the first information report is issued, the investigation com-
mences and indeed it has commenced when the respondent was kept
under suspension. The order of suspension cannot, therefore, be said
to be beyond the scope of Rule i3( J) merely because it has used the
E word 'prosecution' instead of investigation into the charges against the
respondent. A wrong wording in the order does not take away the
power if it is otherwise available. The tribunal seems to have ignored
this well accepted principle.

In stating this conclusion, we do not of course express any
F opinion about the need to make a fresh order of suspension. We how-
ever make it clear that the original order of suspension need not be
given effect to since the respondent has already been reinstated into
service and transferred to some other station.

The appeal is accordingly allowed setting aside the order of the
G Tribunal.

N.P.V. Appeal allowed.