VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 272
577
justified if there are allegations that he may indulge
in similar acts of misconduct (abuse of office and
power) again wherever he may be on duty.
J.V. Puwar vs. State of Gujarat,
1987(5) SLR GUJ 598
The petitioners were Deputy Superintendent of Police and
Police Inspector and Police Sub-Inspector. It is alleged that some
Police Constables committed a rape on a tribal woman. Under the
orders of the Supreme Court, investigation had to be entrusted to
Central Bureau of Investigation. The report of the Commission
appointed by the Supreme Court shows that the three police officers
had not properly investigated and performed their duties and tried to
cover up and protect the police constables.
The petitioners were transferred and thereafter suspended
and these suspension orders are challenged. It was contended by
the petitioners that transfer and suspension both can be resorted to
only in rarest of rare cases and in the present case, there were no
facts justifying suspension. The Gujarath High Court observed that
the petitioners had to be transferred immediately because their
continuing in the same place was likely to result in prejudice to the future
course of investigation. However, that does not prevent the competent
authority from taking a subsequent decision about suspension if the
facts of the case so require. One of the considerations for suspension
is that if the misconduct is proved, it would result in a major punishment
and another consideration is continuing them on duty would be against
public interest and would afford an opportunity to indulge in similar acts
again. A Government servant who is alleged to be corrupt cannot be
trusted in service and must be suspended. A police officer who has
abused his position and office cannot be trusted and hence he must be
suspended and he cannot be trusted to discharge his duties anywhere.