CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts(2003) 02 AHC CK 0075

Rameshwar Prasad Agarahari vs State of U.P.and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 14 February 2003

HON’BLE JUDGES
U.K.Dhaon, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 7214 (S/S) of 2002

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 361 words

U.K. Dhaon, J.—Heard Sri S.S.L. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

2.

The petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 9122002 by which the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that he was in jail from 1342000 to 1742000. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 1742000 the petitioner was released on bail in case Crime No. 35 of 1999 under Section 302 I.P.C. and thereafter by the judgment and order dated 1432002 passed by the Sessions Court, the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case under Sections 302/304 I.P.C.

3.

The learned Standing Counsel submits that there is no illegality in the impugned suspension order, which was passed after the judgment and order dated 1432002 i.e. after the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case.

4.

I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

5.

The petitioner was arrested by the Police in case Crime No. 35 of 1999 under Section 302 I.P.C. and later on by the judgment and order dated 1432002, the petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case. A perusal of the suspension order reveals that the petitioner has been placed under suspension only on the ground that he was in jail from 1342000 to 1742000. There was no justification for the authorities to place the petitioner under suspension after the decision dated 1432002 in the criminal case. Once a person has been acquitted in a criminal case by the competent Court his detention in the police custody on the basis of the F.I.R. is of no consequence and on that ground a person cannot be placed under suspension. The impugned suspension order dated 9122002 is legally not sustainable.

6.

In the result, the writ petition succeeds and a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned suspension order dated 9122002 by which the petitioner was placed under suspension. However, it will be open for the opposite parties to initiate the departmental proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.

7.

In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.