Sita Ram vs State of J & K

T.S. Doabia, J.

Petitioners came to be suspended in pursuance of order passed by the Inspector General of Police Traffic Jammu. The order so passed on 29th of

June 1998 reads as under :

Pending enquiry into dereliction of duty of not checking abnormally overloaded Bus No. JK02S9656 which met with accident on 19.6.1998. The

following Traff Police Personnel posted between Udhampur, Nandni Sector are hereby placed under Suspension with immediate effect.

Shri Sita Ram Inspector 1572/NOG.

Shri Mohan Lal Constable No: 178/JT.

Shri Ashok Kumar Constable No: 4/JT.

By order of Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir :

Sd/

Spl. Secretary to Government

Home Department.

Petitioners submit that they were not supposed to regulate the traffic when accident took place. It is submitted that place where accident took

place does not fall within area of operation of the petitioner. Requisite averments are made in para 4 of the petition.

Objections have been preferred on behalf of respondent No. 5. Reply given in para 4 of the objections reads as under :

In reply to ground (4) of Para No. 4 it is submitted that the jurisdiction of D.T.I. Katra is confined to Katra Town only and the accidental site did

not fall in the jurisdiction of D.T.I. Katra. The petitioners were posted at Katra on the date of accident and were not having jurisdiction of the place

where the accident has taken place.

Mr. Shaista Hakim has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

It is taken up for final disposal.

A perusal of the pleadings of the parties does indicate that prima facie, petitioners were not having jurisdiction in the area where accident took

place. If this be the position then what was said by the Supreme Court of India in case reported as State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, AIR

1994 Supreme Court 2296 : 1994(2) SCT 626 (SC), would be attracted to the fact of this case. In the aforementioned decision, following

observations were made :

It is thus settled law that normally when an appointing authority or the disciplinary authority seeks to suspend an employee, pending enquiry or

contemplated inquiry or pending investigation into grave charges of misconduct or defalcation of funds or serious acts of omission and commission,

the order of suspension would be passed after taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct sought to be inquired into or investigated and

the nature of the evidence placed before the appointing authority and on application of the mind by disciplinary authority. Appointing authority or

disciplinary authority should consider the above aspects and decide whether it is expedient to keep an employee under suspension pending

aforesaid action.

This petition is disposed of with a direction that respondentauthorities would reconsider the entire matter and take notice of the stand taken by the

Senior Superintendent of Police. Let fresh order be passed. Let this be done within a period of six weeks. The period of six weeks would begin

from the date a copy of order passed by this court alongwith copy of writ petition and its annexures are made available by the petitioner to the

respondents. In case no order is passed, petitioners shall stand reinstated.

Disposed of accordingly.