Holding

The suspension order is not amenable to a writ under Article 32 as a statutory appeal under Rule 16 is available and there is no violation of Article 14; the petition is dismissed.

Summary

Deputy Inspector General of Police S.A. Khan was suspended by the Haryana Government on 5 July 1991, a suspension later confirmed by the Central Government under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1969. Khan alleged that the suspension was mala fide, intended to protect Chief Minister Bhajan Lal from a corruption investigation he was supervising, and claimed it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The State contended that the suspension was a lawful exercise of power under Rule 3(3) of the Rules and that a statutory appeal under Rule 16 was available, rendering the writ petition under Article 32 untenable. The Supreme Court held that the suspension order did not expressly link to the corruption case, that a statutory remedy existed, and that there was no clear violation of Article 14; consequently, it dismissed the writ petition. The Court also refrained from commenting on alleged malice, noting that such observations could prejudice future proceedings.

Issues considered

The maintainability of a writ petition under Article 32 challenging a suspension order when a statutory appeal under Rule 16 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1969 is available.
Whether the suspension order violated Article 14 of the Constitution by being arbitrary, mala fide, or for an improper purpose.
Whether the suspension order is connected with the corruption investigation and thus subject to extraordinary judicial intervention.

Legislation cited

All India Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1969s. Rule 16, s. Rule 3(1)(b), s. Rule 3(3)
Delhi Police Special Establishment Act, 1946s. Section 6
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. Section 161, s. Section 165, s. Section 302, s. Section 307, s. Section 34
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947s. Section 5(2)

Subjects

Article 32Suspension orderAll India Services RulesStatutory appealArticle 14Administrative lawDisciplinary actionWrit petitionJudicial review

Judgment

S.A. KHAN A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

DECEMBER 18, 1992
B
[S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.]

..... Civil Service: All India Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1969-
Rules 3, 4 and 16--Suspension order--<:hallenge to-Availability of statutory
remedy of appeal-Writ Petition-Maintainability of.
c
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14 and 32-Suspension order
passed by State Government on the basis of F.l.R. registered against Petitioner
and confinned by Central Government-Validity of-Availability of statutory
right of appeal-Writ Petition challenging orde,-Maintainability of.
D
The petitioner, a Deputy Inspector General of Police filed a writ
petition before this Court, praying for setting aside the order of suspen·
sion passed against him and declaring it to be void ab initio and for
hearing the petition along with the contempt petition filed by him earlier,
and (b) an interim order suspending the operation of the order ofsuspen·
sion, during the pendency of the hearing of the said contempt petition and E
the writ petition.

It was contended that the suspension order had been passed in
male fide exercise of the discretionary power for improper purpose, for
the reason that the petitioner had been incharge of the investigation of F
the case of corruption registered against the Chief Minister of the State;
that the order was patently unconstitutional and illegal, besides being
vitiated by malice both in law and facts and that it was in gross violation
of Article 14 of the Constitution as it had been passed by misuse of
power in a very arbitrary and capricious manner; that after assuming
the charge of Chief Ministership of the State, by misusing his powers, G
the Chief Minister secured false affidavit from the complainant in the
corruption case by rewarding him the appointment of Chairman of the
State Khadi Board, and had suspended the petitioner with a designed
motive of deflecting the judgment of this Court rendered in a CiviJ
appeal before this Court. H
749
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State it was stated that
no fundamental right of the petitioner had been violated and, as such, the
writ petition was not maintainable; that the suspension order, in question,
was passed by the State Government after due consideration and in lawful
exercise of its functions in terms of Rule 3(3) of the All India Services
B. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 and the order had been confirmed by
the Government of India under Rule 3(1)(b) of the Rules; that the said
Rule p~ovided remedy to the ~fficers concerned by filing an appeal under
Rule 16 of the Rules and therefore the writ petition was misconceived
because of the availability of statutory remedy provided under the Rules,
that the investigation pursuant to the order of this Court made in the civil
C appeal was finally completed when the State was under the President's
Rule; that as no proof was found to establish the. allegations, a cancella-
tion report was sent to the Court which had been accepted and that,
therefore, the order of this Court made in the civil appeal was neither
nullified nor any attempt had been made to stultify the jurisdiction of this
D Court, that the suspension order was passed so that free and fair inves-
tigation could be carried on in the cases registered against the petitioner
and had no connection with the Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner
before this Court; and that it was neither violative of Articles 14 and 16 of.
the Constitution nor opposed to any valid .law or rules.

E Dismissing the writ petition, this Court

HELD: 1.1. The order of suspension does not either expressly or
impliedly or even remotely spell out that the petitioner was suspended for
having been incharge of the investigation of the corruption case or for
F having taken· active role in the. proceedings of the case. The suspension
order has been confirmed by the Central Government in exercise of its
powers under Rule 3(1)(b) of the Rules. The Rules provide a remedy to
the officer concerned by preferring a statutory appeal under Rule 16 of the
Rules. (762-C,D]

G 1.2. It is not possible to accept that in view of the quick succession
of events, viz., that the very next day after the respondent became the Chief
Minister, the petitioner was transferred, without being given any place of
posting and after five days he was suspended; that earlier to the election
of the respondent as the Chief Minister, the investigation of the corrup~
H tion case was completed and the cancellation report was forwarded to the
S.A. KHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA [PANDIAN, J.] 751

Ilaqa Magistrate, who accepted the cancellation report and discharged the A
accused, though the investigation of the corruption case does not wrjt
large on the face of the suspension order, suspension order was in fact
very much connected with the investigation of the co1TUption case, which
was under the supervision and incharge of the writ petitioner and, there·
fore, this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in revoking B
this suspension. [766·G,H; 767-A,8]

1.3. No opinion is expressed on the question of alleged mala fide,
exercise of fraud, arbitrariness, malice etc. since any observation, if made
on this aspect, will prejudice or be detrimental to either of the parties in
any future adjudication relating to the suspension order. further, there is C
no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution giving rise to the filing of the
writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, Moreover, it is only a
suspension order and there is a statutory remedy available to the
petitioner. Therefore, it is not possible to intervene at this stage.
(767-C,DJ D.

De Smith's Judicial Review of Administrative Action. (Fourth Edition
at page 325); S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India and others, (1967) 2 SCR
703; S.Pratap Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1964] 4 SCR 733 and 741;
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Satyanarayana
Transporters, AIR 1965.S.C. 1303; Lazarns Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, <1956) 1 E
All. E.R. 341, 345; Basheshar Nath v. The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Delhi & Rajasthan & Another, (1959] 1 Suppl. SCR 528; Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India, [1978] 2 SCR 621; Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India,
[1957) SCR 233 and G. Sandandan v. State of Kera/a, AIR 1966 S.C. 1925
p. 1930 para 21, referred to. F

1.4. The material on record irrefragably and demonstratively shows

• that there was bad blood between the Chief Minister. and the petitioner,
which, has been gaining momentum day by day and has ultimately cul·
minated in these proceedings inclusive of the filing of the writ petition.
The petitioner, in one of his letters to the Director General of Police of the G
State has himself admitted his strained relationship. In another letter to
the State Director General of Police, the petitioner has mentioned some
unpalatable, unsavoury and vitriolic remarks couched in unrestrained
language against the Chief Minister allegedly on the strength of a con·
fidential report. It is manifestly clear that the petitioner in utter despera· H
752 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A tion has made such an unpalatabl!' remark evidently crossing his bounds.
A bureaucrat W(Jrking under the Government is not expected to disclose
any confidential report that comes to his knowledge in his official capacity
to sacisfy his personal grievance. The petitioner is holding a high position
in the Governmental machinery that too in the disciplinary police force
though now under suspension, and this Court expresses its strong disap-
B proval in this regard. (/58-G,H 760-D-F; 761-A-D]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 923 of 1991.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

C Kapil Sibal, K. Parasaran, R.K. Garg, Ms. lndu Malhotra, Ms. Indu
Goswami, Mahabir Singh and S. Srinivasan for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. This Writ Petition under Article 32 of
D the Constitution of India is flied by the petitioner, Shri S.A. Khan, IPS,
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hafyana, now under suspension seek-
-
ing the following reliefs: .
"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased
to hear this petition alongwith the Contempt Petition
E aforesaid and grant the petitioner following.reliefs:-

(a) a writ, order or direction setting aside the illegal order
of suspension dated 5.7.1991 (Annexure 'A') passed against
the petitioner and declaring it to be void ab initio;
F (b) An Interim order suspending the operation of the
impugned order of suspension during the pendency of the
hearing of the said Contempt petition and also this writ
petition;

G (c) Issue any other writ,. direction or order;

(d) Award the cost of the petition."

We would also like to proliferate the prefatory note of the Writ
Petition fot proper understanding the circumstances under which this
H petition has been filed:
S.A. KHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA [PANDIAN, J.] 753

"Writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India A
in continuatioft of C.M.P. No. 2743of1989, I.A. Nos. 1 and
2 of 1991 in C.A. No. 5412of1990."

The material facts which have led to the filing of the above CMP and
IAs referred to in the prefatory note are given separately in the contem-
poraneous proceeding relating to the Contempt Petition No. 7/89. Suffice B
it to say that according to the petitioner, since the investigation of the
criminal case registered in Sadar Police Station in F.I.R. No. 372/87 dated
21.11.87 against Ch. Bhajan Lal (who was then the Union Minister for
"Environment and Forests, Government of India, at the time of the registra-
tion of the case and who is now the Chief Minister of Haryana State) and c
others on the complaint of one Dharam Pal under Sections 161 and l65 of
the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption .
Act of 1947 was under the direct charge and supervision of the writ
petitioner Shri Khan, Ch. Bhajan Lal with ma/a fide intention of clogging
and terminating the investigation has caused the impugned suspension
order to be passed as against the petitioner by misusing his power and D
authority as Chief Minister.

Mr. R.K. Garg, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner has vehemently contended that the suspension order has
been passed in ma/a fide exercise of the discretionary power for imporper E
purpose, for the simple reason that the petitioner has been incharge of the
investigation of the case of corruption registered against Ch. Bhajan Lal;
that the order of suspension is patently unconstitutional and illegal besides
being vitiated by malice both in law and facts and that it is in gross violation
of Article 14 of the Constitution as it has been passed by misuse of power
in a very arbitrary and capricious manner. He has further submitted that F
Ch. Bhajan Lal after assuming the charge of Chief Ministership of Haryana
by misusing his powers secured false affidavit from the complainant in the
corruption case (Dharam Pal) by rewarding him the appointment of Chair-
man of the Haryana Khadi Board, and has suspended the petitioner S.A.
Khan with a designed native of deflecting the judgment of this Court
rendered in Civil Appeal No. 5412/90 by and under which liberty has been G
given to the State Government to direct an investigation afresh in the
corruption case and also making it impossible fot the State Government
and the petitioner or the other police officers to complete the investigation
into the serious charges of corruption against , Ch. Bhajan Lal. The
petitioner has recalled the attention of this Court to the various averments
made in I.A. No. 2 of 1991 in C.A. No. 5412/90 wherein also a similar H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A prayer for. setting aside the suspension order is mage on the ground that
the suspension order is illegal and contumacious. It is further stated by the
petitioner that the present Writ Petition has been filed in addition to the
I.A. 2/1)1 in order to obviate the technical objections, if any, raised.

We shall now give a brief note of the reply of the respondents
B narrating the circumstances which led to the suspension of the petitioner.
The Under Secretary, Home Department, Haryana in his reply affidavit
·filed in the contempt petition has rebutted the allegations made by Shri
S.A. Khan in I.A. No. 2/91 which relates to the suspension order. In that
affidavit, it is stated that in pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated
21st November, 1990 in Civil Appeal No. 5412/90, the State of Haryana
C entrusted the investigation of the case to the competent authorities, namely,
Shri Baldev Raj, the then CID Ambala and Shri Avtar Singh, DSP (Crime),
Ambala on ·20.12.1990; that the abovesaid investigating officers retired
before the investigation could be completed, that the investigation of the
case thereafter was entrusted to Shri Avtar Krishnan, DSP Tohana District,
Hissar in June, 1991; that on completion of the investigation on 18.6.1991
D the investigating officer came to the conclusion that the allegations against
Ch.· Bhajan Lal were false. Consequently, a cancellation report was for-
warded to the Jlaqa Magistrate for his approval which was accepted on
22.7.1991. There is no investigation now pending against"Ch. Bhajan Lal.
It is further stated that the application pertaining to the revocation of the
suspension order passed against Shri S.A. Khan is without any merit and
E the said suspension is based on a separate ca'use of action; that it has got
nothing to do with the proceedings against Ch. Bhajan Lal and that Shri
S.A. Khan has been suspended on account of the obstruction caused by
him in the investigation of two FIRs lodged against him in 1989 being FIR
No. 147/89 and FIR No. 492/89 at Bhiwani Police Station registered under
Section 307 IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC respectively;
F that several officers including Shri S.A. Khan were suspended and the
suspension of each of the officers has been 'confirmed by the Central
Government and that the plea of Shri Khan that the suspension is singular
and malafide is absolutely baseless and false to his knowledge.

Ch. Bhajan Lal has also filed a separate affidavit in the contempt
G petition in which also a prayer for setting aside the suspension order is
made, saying that ne has no ill-will or malice against Shri Khan who has
made these false al~egations on some erroneous impression as if Ch. Bhajan
Lal is ill-disposed towards him ..

H A separate counter affidavit by the State of Haryana in this Writ
S.A. KHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA [PANDIAN, J.] 755

Petition is filed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Haryana A
Stating that no fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated and
as such the Writ Petition is not maintainable; that the impugned suspension
order dated 5.7.1991 was passed by the State Government after due con-
sideration and in lawful exercise of its functions in terms of Rule 3(3) of
the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969 - (hereinafter
referred to as "the Rules") which order has been confirmed by the Govern- B
ment of India under Rule 3(1) (b) of the Rules; that the said Rule provides
remedy to the officers concerned by filing an appeal under Rule 16 of the
Rules and that therefore this Writ Petition is misconceived because of the
availability of statutory retilely provided under the Rules. Further it is
stated in the counter that the investigation pursuant to the order dated
21.11.1990 made in Civil Appeal No. 5412/90 was finally completed on C
18.6.1991 when the State of Haryana was under the President's Rule; that
as no proof was found to establish the allegations against Ch. Bhajan Lal
a cancellation report was sent to the Court which· has been accepted l:>n
22.7.1991 and that, therefore, the order of this Court made in the Civil
Appeal was neither nullified nor any attempt has been made to stultify the
jurisdiction of this Court. Accordmg to the State, the suspension order was D
passed so that free and fair investigations could be carried on in the cases
registered against the petitioner in FIR Nos. 147/89 and 492/89. The
suspension order has no connection with the Contempt Petition filed
before this Court against Ch. Bhajan Lal. It is further stated that the
suspension order is neither violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitu-
tion nor not opposed to any valid law or rules; that the investigation in the E
main corruption case was completed even before the suspension of the
petitioner; that the petitioner as D.I.G. (CID) from 23.7.1990 to.2.4.1991
was not the investigating officer of the case and that the said order of
suspension was not passed with · a view to buy over the complainant
(Dharam Pal), Ch. Bhajan Lal was elected as Chief Minister on 23.6.1991
only after the completion of the investigation on 18.6.1991 during the F
President's Rule. The first respondent has enumerated the following in-
stances in which the petitioner has been involved:

(1) During the elections to the Bhiwani Parliamentary
Constituency held in November 1989 and again during the
elections to the Darba Kalan Assembly Constituency, the G
petitioner was restrained from visiting both the constituen-
cies under the directions of the Elections Commissioner,
as the Commissioner had reasons to believe that this Police
Officer would interfere in free and fair elections. vide letter
H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l992) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A No. 90/3AE-5418 dated 12th July, 1990 written by the Chief
Electoral Officer, to Director General of Police, Haryana.

(2) The Ministry of Home Affairs had recently sought the
-
consent of the State Government under Section 6 of the
Delhi Police Special Establishment Act, 1946 to conduct a
B detailed inquiry to unearth the benami nature of two com-
mercial ventures allegedly owned by the petitioner.

(3) In March 1990, disciplinary proceedings were initiated
against Shri S.A. Khan under Rule 8 of the Rules for certain
acts of omission and commissioin during the gene;-al elec-
c tions to the 9th Lok Sabha.

(4) Ari inquiry under Rule 8 of the Rules is directed to
inquire into the alleged drawal of false TNDA.

(5) The ministry of Home Affairs had brought to the notice
D
of the first respondent in December, 1989 that the
petitioner is liable to pay Rs. 68,900/- on account of excess
telephone calls made by him.

The petitioner has filed an affidavit in reply to the counter of the first
E respondent (State) and of Ch. Bhajan Lal denying all the allegations levelled
agianst him. According to him, the variolis allegations levelled by the fmt
respondent are totally untenable and irrelevant. He states that Ch. Bhajan
Lal and his Government are unjustily harassing him by passing the illegal
order of suspension for the f~llowing reasons:

F 1. The petitioner had furnished incontrovertible evidence
to the Commission of Inquiry headed by Raja Jaswant
Singh (ex-Judge of the Supreme Court) appointed by the
then Prime Minister against Ch. Bhajan Lal to find out as
to whether he could be continued as Chief Minister.
G
2. Ch. Bhajan Lal in order to c0ntinue as Chief Minister
without facing the criminal prosecution for corruption has
placed the petitioner under suspension by misusing his
power.

H 3. To paralyse the investigation of the corruption case
S.A. KHAN v. STATE OF HARYAt'\IA [PANDIAN, J.) 757

under the petitioner's supervision and to nullify the order A
of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5412/90 for
escaping froni the criminal liability, he has rewarded the,
complainant, Dharam Pal, by appointing him as the Chair-
man of the Khadi Board as a quid pro quo for the
withdrawal of the compalaint.
B
Shri Khan has refuted the allegations of his involvement in the two
FIRs stating that he is neither an accused in the respective complaints nor
is he involved in them in any other manner. He has further stated that even
in the statements recorded !.!nder Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure from the witnesses in connection with those two FIRs, there is C
no mention of his involvement in either of the criminal cases.

Explaining the other allegations, the petitioner states that he has sent
a detailed letter to the Chief Election Commissioner, Haryana thrn 11gh the
Director General of Police in June, 1990 stating that he couk '1.0t be
stopped to perform his lawful duties in his jurisdiction in exercise of his D
official work as the range Deputy Inspector General of Police. The
petitioner challenged his transfer on the basis of the letter written by the
Chief Election Commissioner of India during November 1989 and June
1990 and the matter came up before this Court in SLP (C) No. 6996 of
1991. This Court while dismissing the SLP observed: E
"We would like to make it clear that the allegations made
therein will not be linked with the impugned transfer and
they will further not be considered against the petitioner
service career."
F
He has denied the allegations of benami commercial ventures as well
as the alleged false claim of 'f.A. and D.A. It is stated by the petitioner
that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has directed the Union of India
to make the payment of T.A. Bills in civil revision petition filed by him.
Regarding the telephone bill, he states that he was not provided with STD
facilities and that he has moved the District Forum under the Consumer G
Protection Act against excessive billing by the Telephone Department.
Finally he states that he has sent a number of representations to the Home
Secretary, Haryana; Director General of Police, Haryana; Home Secretary,
Government of India, New Delhi on various dates followed by his
reminders. Along with the reply affidavit the petitioner has annexed some H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A copies of statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure as well as his correspondences with his higher ups and copies
of the 'order of this Court in SLP (C) No. 6996/91 and the order of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana made in Civil Miscellaneous No.
8455-CII of 1991 in Civil Revision No. 2025/91. To the reply affidavit, a
rejoinder affidavit is filed by respondents 1 and 2 sworn by the Under
B Secretary to the Government of Haryana on 7.2.1992. In this rejoinder, it
is stated that the two FIRs lodged against the petitioner have been referred
to the Government of India for entrusting the investigation to the CBI; that
in the meanwhile a special team under the supervision of Deputy Superin-
tendent of Police, Headquarters Bhiwani has been constituted by the S.P.
c for further investigation of those two FIRs; that the Ministry of Home
Affairs had sought consent of the State Government under Section 6 of the
Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946 to conduct a detailed inquiry to
unearth the benami nature of the two commercial ventures; that there is
an inquiry being conducted by the C.BJ. in this matter and the same is in
D progress; that in spite of the alleged false T.A. Bills by the petitioner, the
petitioner has been chargesheeted under rule 8 of the Rules by the Govern-
ment 'of India and that with r~gard to the non-payment of telephone bills -
the Government of India has brought to the notice of the State Government
in December 1989 that the petitioner is not ready i:o pay Rs. 68,900, which
amount he has not deposited so far and that the statements of Sarvashri
E Azad Singh, Bir Singh, Dharma Chand, Balwan Singh and Om Prakash
which are. annexed to the reply affidavit are not on the police files and that
in fact the statements were not recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C.
through the investigating officer, who is entrusted with the investigation of
the case. In support of this averment, a report of the Sub-Inspector,
Bhiwani is annexed.
F
A close scrutiny of the serious averments made in the Writ Petition,
the affidavits of counter, reply and rejoinder as well as in the documents
annexed thereto irrefragably and demonstratively shows that for a consid-
erable length of time, in fact over a decade, there was bad blood between
G Ch. Bhajan Lal and the writ petitioner, which, it appears, has been gaining
momentum day by day and has ultimately culminated in these proceedings
indusive of the filing of the Writ Petition. The writ petitioner has given
various instances in Annexure 'B' to this Writ Petition which according to
him, have provoked Ch. Bhajan Lal to entertain a feeling of vengeance
H against the wTit petitioner. Those are:
S.A. KHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA [PANDIAN, J.] 759

(1) While the writ petitioner was Assistant Inspector A
General of Police, Haryana, he was deputed to arrest Shri
Bhindrawala at Chandokalan. But, as the news of his "im-
pending arrest" ·was disclosed to Shri Bhindranwala, he
with the assistance of the official machinery escaped the
arrest. In spite of this incident, a one man commission of
inquiry headed by Justice Gurnam Singh was appointed to B
inquire into the allegations involving the petitioner and his
staff at Chandigarh. The petitioner was constrained to fde
a Writ Petition before the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana challenging the appointment of the one man com-
mission which was not liked by Ch. Bhajan Lal. A silimar
Writ Peition was also filed by a member of the police force
before the Supreme Court which is still pending. The
Enquiry Commission was stayed and has remained stayed
since then.
D
(2) Ch. Bhajan Lal secured the transfer of the petitioner
outside the State of Haryana and assigned no duty for a
long time in order to punish him for approaching the High
Court.

(3) As a result of a wide public reaction against the then E
corruptive practices prevailing in the administration of the
Government of Haryana and the serious allegations
levelled against the then Chief Minister, namely, Ch.
Bhajan Lal in that connection, the Prime Minister Shri
Rajiv Gandhi appointed an Enquiry Commission, headed F
by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Jaswant
Singh to hold an inquiry into the allegations against Cb.
Bhajan Lal. Before the Enquiry Commission, the petitioner
placed materials relating to incontrovertible proof of cor-
ruption of Ch. Bhajan Lal. On account of this Ch. Bhajan
Lal became inimical towards the petitioner. G

(4) A series of criminal cases numbering to 21 listed in the
Writ Petition were registered against the partners, close
associates and relations of Ch. Bhajan Lal in Hissar range
even before the petitioner was transferred to Hissar range H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A as D.I.G.

(5) When Ch. Devi Lal became the Chief Minister of
Haryana, the FIR No. 372/87 was lodged with the allega-
tions of corruption of high magnitude against Ch. Bhajan
Lal which led to the Civil Appeal No. 5412/90, which was
B disposed of by this Court on 21.11.1990. In that case, the
petitioner was assisting and instructing the Advocate
General appearing for the State of Haryana before the
Supreme Court. Hence Ch. Bhajan Lal apprehending that
his political career was in jeopardy by that judicial proceed-
ing has misused his power malicfously and suspended the
c petitioner w.e.f. 5th July 1991 after he assumed.the office
, of the. Chief Minister of Haryana State.

(Vide paragraph 13 (A to F) of the aforementioned An-
nexure 'B'.)
D
In fact the petitioner himself has stated in one of his letters dated
13.8.1991 enclosed with the Writ Petition addressed to the Director
General of Police, Haryana admitting his strained relationship as follows:

"I have strained relations with the present Chief Minister
E as Shii J.P. Atray in September, 1981 for reasons best.
known to him had misrepresented certain facts in Chan-
dokalan/Gurnam Singh Commission episode."

Further in yet another letter dated 13.8.1991 addressed to the Direc-
F tor General of Police, Haryana he has mentioned some unpalatable, un-
savoury and vitriolic remarks couched in unrestrained language, allegedly
on the strength of aconfidential police report which reads:

"The confidential record of P.S. Adampur and District
Crime Record Hissar, clearly shows that Shii Bhajan Lal
G started his carrer as a petty Food grain smuggler. In the
village Crime book there is mentioned of his Anti Social
activities. He is notorious for his corruption and now he is
making every effort to stop this process of law to avoid the
Supreme Court direction to inves,tigate ...........................
H Pressure is being put on the Judiciary to approve this
S.A. KHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA [PANDIAN, J.] 761

cancellation report within 3 weeks." A
We have given the above facts, extracting the same from various
documents annexed to the Writ Petition for demonstrating the high mag-
nitude of their hostile relationship existing well-nigh for a decade, that is
from 1981 onwards. It appears that the petitioner is having a long-standing
. deep rooted hostility and strained relationship with Ch. Bhajan Lal which B
is reflected from the averments made in the letter written by him to the
Director General of Police notwithstanding the fact that Ch. Bhajan Lal is
the Chief Minister of the State whereas the petitioner is bureaucrat. It is
manifestly clear that the petitioner in utter desperation has made such an
unpalatable remark evidently crossing his bounds. Needless to emphasise, C
a bureaucrat working under the Government .is not expected to disclose
any confidential report that comes to his knowledge in his official capacity
to satisfy his personal grievance. The petitioner is holding a high position
in the Governmental machinery that too in the disciplinary police force
though now under suspension. We do not like to elaborate this aspect of D
the matter any further except expressing our strong disapproval.

In the above back-drop, we may now turn to the submissions made
by Mr. R.K. Garg for setting aside the order of suspension.

The order of suspension under challenge which is annexed as 'An- E
nexure-A' reads as follows:

"HARYANA GOVERNMENT
HOME DEPARTMENT
ORDER F
Whereas the Governor of Haryana is satisfied that it
is necessary to place Shri S.A. Khan lPS (HAR-1970),
DIG, under suspension so that free and fair investigations
in cases FIR No. 147/89 u/s 307-IPC and FIR No. 492, u/s
302/34-IPC registered at police station, City Bhiwani could G
be conducted in public interest.

Now, therefore, the Governor of Haryana hereby
places Shri S.A. Khan, IPS, DIG, under suspension with
Em.ediate effect. H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A During the period of suspension, Shri S.A. Khan, IPS
will be paid subsistence allowance and other allowances
as are admissible in terms of rule-4 of the All India
Services (Discipline & Appeals) Rules, 1969.

His headquarters during the period of suspension will
B be at Ambala.

Tirlochan Singh
Financial Commissioner and Secretary
to Govt. Haryana, Home Department.
c No. 18/76/91-2HG-1 Dated Chandigarh
the 5th July, 1991."
A reading of the above order of suspension does not either expressly
or impliedly or even remotely spell out that the petitioner was suspended
for having been incharge of the investigation of t.he corruption case
D registered in FIR No. 372/87 or for having taken active role in the proceed-
ings of the said case. This suspension order has been confirmed by the
Central Government in exercise of its powers under rule 3(1)(b) of the
Rules. It cannot be disputed that the Rules provide a remedy to the officer
concerned by preferring a statutory appeal under rule 16 of the Rules.

E Mr. R.K. Garg states that Ch. Bhajan Lal after having been elected
as Chief Minister .of Haryana State on 23.6.1991 on being actuated by
malice has ordered the suspension of the petitioner misusing his authority
and deceptively passed this order as if this suspension order has nothing
to do with the corruption case registered against him so as to give a
F misleading impression. What Mr. Garg wants this Court is to draw an
inference which could be the only inference according to him from the
surrounding circumstances of the case that this suspension order was
passed because of the active interest taken by the petitioner in the criminal
proceedings of the case of corruption registered against Ch. Bhajan Lal
and as such this order is vitiated by ma/a fide. According to Mr. Garg, the
G submission made by Mr~ Kapil Sibal, the senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the first respondent (the State of Haryana) that there is no
fundamental right of the petitioner to approach this Court with this Writ
Petition and that the remedy available to him at this stage is only for a
statutory appeal under Rule 16 of the Rules, is totally inconceivable. He
H further contends that this petition under Article 32 is maintainable since
S.A. KHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA [PANDIAN, J.] 763

there is gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution committed by Ch. A
Bhajan Lal by misusing his power in an arbitrary manner and that ma/a
fide permeates through the order of suspension. The other facet of bis
argument is that since the suspension order is connected with the final
order passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 5412/90, the petitioner was
constrained to file the Writ ff<tition under Article 32 instead of approach-
ing the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or preferring an B
. appeal to the authorities concerned under the rules. In continuation of bis
submission, the learned counsel vehemently urged that this suspension is
nothing but a fraud on power and if it is allowed to stand, there will be
negation of justice and that the Chief Minister has by this order destroyed
the petitioner's equal protection of law as enshrined under Article 14 of C
the Constitution. In support of his contention be has relied upon a passage
of De Smith's Judicial Review of Administrative Action (Fourth Edition at
page 325) under the caption 'Exercise of a Discretionary power for an
Improper Purpose'. The relevant passage referred to reads as thus:

"If a power granted for one purpose is exercised for a D
different purpose, that power has not been validly exer-
cised ...........................nowadays the courts will not readily
be deterred by subjectively worded statutory formulae from
determining whether acts done avowedly in pursuance of
statutory powers bore an adequate relationship to the E
purposes prescribed by statute .......................................... .An
exercise of discretionary power, ex- facie valid, is likely to
be held invalid if it can be shown to have been directed ad
hominem - e.g. where a by-law or order has been made
especially to thwart an individual application for a per-
F
mit. .......................... .If a prim a f acie case of abuse of power
by a public authority has been established, the failure of
that authority to adduce· any evidence in reply from which
it can reasonably be inferred that the avowed purpose had
in fact been pursued may lead a court to the conclusion
that they have not been genuinely pursued." G

Mr. Garg forcibly articulated that the absence of arbitrary power is
the first essential of th Rule of Law upon which. our whole constitutional
system is based and that in a system governed by Rule of Law, discretion
when conferred upon executive authorities, must be continued within clear- H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A ly defined limits and if a decision is taken without any principle or without
any rule it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a
decision taken in accordance with the Rule of Law. For the above proposi-
tion; he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in S.G. Jaisinghani v.
Union of India and others, AIR 1967 S.C. 1427 = [1967] 2 SCR 703.
Reliance was also placed in S. Pratap Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1964)
B 4 SCR 733. According to him, Ch. Bhajan Lal for pursuing his illegitimate
aim and wreakin vengeance against the writ petitioner who having been
incharge of the investigation of the corruption case took active role in
unmasking him and thereby exposing him to the public what Ch. Bhajan
Lal is, after having become the Chief Minister of Haryana State has passed
c this suspension order which is tainted with mala fide. Therefore, this order
is liable to be. struck down. In this connection, he drew the attention of this
Court to an observation at page 741 made _in Pratap Singh's case (supra)
reading "the use of that power -for achieving an alien purpose - wreaking
the minister's vengeance on the officer wollld be ma/a fide and a colourable
D exercise of that power, and would therefore, be struck down by the Courts."

The further submission of Mr. Garg is in addition to the manifesta-
tion of ma/a fide, personal bias on the part of the Chief Minister, Ch.
Bhajan Lal is writ large on the face of the order of suspension and
therefore on that ~ound also the suspension has to be quashed. In support
E of_ this plea, he placed reliance in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation v. Satyanarayana Transporters, AIR 1965 S.C. 1303. Saying that
the suspension order was pass.ed in exercise of fraud besides with mala fide
and personal bias, he drew our attention to the observation of Lord
Denning in Lazams Estates, Ltd. v. Beasley, {1956) 1 All. E.R. 341, 345,
which reads thus:
F
"No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be
allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud."

Relying on the view expressed by this Court in Pratap Singh 's case
G {supra) it has been strenuously urged that if the dominant purpose of
making an order is unlawful, then the act itself is unlawful and it is not
cured by saying that the maker had another purpose which was lawful.

Lastly, drawing strength on the decisions of this, Court in Bashes/Jar
Nath v. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi & Rajasthan & Another,
H (1959] 1 Suppl. SCR 528 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2
S.A. KHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA (PANDIAN, J.] 765

SCR 621, it has been contended by Mr. Garg that si.1ce the order of A
_suspension under challenge is one passed by the Government in arbitrari-.
ness violating the equal protection as envisaged under Article 14 of the
Constitution, this Court being the guardian of the liberty and protector of
the fun~amental rights of the citizens of this country has to step into this
matter and set at naught the gross injustice done to the petitioner. Even if
the power is discretionary, it is not necessarily discriminatory and the B
discretion vested in such high officials should not be assumed by abuse of
power, vide Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India, [1957] SCR 233. According
to him as pointed out in G.Sandandan v. State of Kera/a, AIR 1966 S.C.
1925, at page 1930 para 21, the tendency to pass· orders in a very casual
and cavalier manner by using the unfettered powers will ultimately pose a c
serious threat to the basic values on which the democratic way of life in
this country is founded and this case is one such example.

According to Mr. Kapil Sibal, all the decisions relied upon by Mr.
Garg are not under Article 32 of the Constitution except (1) Pannalal D
Binjraj's case (supra) in which the question was whether Section 5(7A) of
the Income Tax Act is ultra vires of the Constitution as infringing the
fundamental rights enshrined in Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g); and (2)
Maneka Gandhi's case (supra) in which the main thrust of contention was
whether Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1957 is violative of Article
14, 19(1)(a) and (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and hence all those E
decisions except the two mentioned above cannot be availed of by the writ
petitioner.

Be that as it may, as we have indicated above the suspension of the
Writ petitioner Mr. Khan is based on a separate cause of action and there F
is no reference of any part of the corruption case either directly or
indirectly in the suspension order. Further the said suspension order has
been confirmed by the Central Government. Along with the reply affidavit
Mr. Khan has annexed several letters. In one of the letters dated 19.7.1991
addressed to the Home Secretary, Haryana by Shri Khan the following
averments are made: G

"Within 24 hours of his taking over as Chief Minister, I was
transferred and till 5th July I was not given any posting
orders. I have waited till today i.e. 19.7.1991 but I have not
been served the suspension order for the reasons best H
766 SUPREM:LO COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A known to you. I feel that it is desired that I should not be
·in a position to agitate in the Administrative Tribunal for
redressal andjustice .............. ,.................. .I suppose on fancy
as well as caprice, on 20.8.1991 your suspension order is
likely to become invalid and faulty as no charge sheet can
possibly be served on these grounds without investigation.
B I request you to re-consider the matter dispassionately,
revoke my suspension order and save me unnecessary
expense aD;d mental torture."

In another letter dated 7.10.1991 addressed to the DGP he has
C requested "that the suspension order may please be revoked" after pointing
out that though more than 90 days have elapsed, he has not been served
with any chargesheet. In yet another letter dated 9.1.1992 addressed to the
DGP, h·e, after stating that more than 6 months pe;riod has elapsed since
his suspension, has requested the DGP that his representation be sent to
D the Government of India for revocation of the suspension order. Along
with the letter it appears that he has attached copies of those earlier
represe~tations addressed to the Government of .l:ndia.

From the above correspondence, it is gathered that the petitioner
Mr. Khan has not only approached the Home Secretary of the State
E
Government, 'the DGP of the State of Haryana, but also has sent his
representations to the Government of India presumably through the DGP
requesting for revocation of the suspension for the various reasons men-
tioned therein, one of which being that more than 6 mor..ths had elapsed
since the suspension. In one of the letters he has also expressed his
F awareness of approaching the Administrative Tribunal for any relief to
which he would be entitled to. Till date admittedly no formal charge has
been framed following the suspension. It is also admitted that the petitioner
has got a statutory appeal under rule 16 of the Rules.

G At the risk of repetition, it may be recalled in this connection that
Ch. Bhajan Lal became the Chief Minister on 23.6.1991 and that on the
very next day, that is on 24.6.1991 the petitioner Mr. Khan was transferred
~thout being given any place of posting and on 5.7.1991 he was suspended.
Earlier to the election of the Chief Minister, the investigation of the
H corruption case was completed on 18.6.1991 and the cancellation report
S.A KHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA [PANDIAN, J.] 767

.dated 18.6.1991 was forwarded to the Ilaqa Magistrate who accepted the · A
caneellation report on 22.7.1991 and discharged the accused.

From the above quick succession of events, it has been forcibly urged
that though the investigation of the corruption case does not writ large on
the face of the suspension order, in fact this order is very much connected
with the investigation of the corruption case which was under the super- B
vision and incharge of the writ petitioner, Shri Khan and therefore this
Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in revoking this suspen-
sion. We are unable to accept the above argument. As we feel that any
observation of ours, if made, on the submissions advanced on behalf of the
petitioner as regards the alleged mala fide, exercise of fraud, arbitrariness, C
malice etc. will prejudice or be detrimental to either of the parties in any
future adjudication relating to the suspension order, we refrain from
expressing our views on this aspect. Further we see no force in the
argument that there is a gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
giving rise to the filing of the writ Petition under Article 32 of the Con- D
stitution. Above all, we are inclined to dismiss this writ petition since it is
only a suspension order and there is a statutory remedy available to the
petitioner.

In the result, for all the aforementioned reasons the Writ Petition is
dimissed. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the Writ Petition, we hope and E
trust that the State Government will expedite the proceedings one way or
the other without keeping the petitioner Mr. Khan on tenterhook for any
further period. We would like to point out that any observation made in
justification of this judgment shall not have any bearing on any proceedings
that may arise on this issue. No. costs. F
N.P.V. Petition dismissed.