ANIL YADAV & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 533

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, A. VARADARAJAN, AMARENDRA NATH SEN

Judgment text

•• ·A . ANIL ·YADAV. & _ORS. ' '· v. ·. '_;--;:. I ·. ·' · l·. ·... . STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. '/ . •, ,,- . •.. .. } . , . ·. · , , March 23, 1982; ·-; ,.. ,"-;. ·· ". -· .. V'. [Y. V. CJIANDRACHUD, C. J. , A. ' vARADARAJAN AND A! llARENDRA NATH SEN, JI. ] • ; j" -. . . _, .. _·.. . __ . · ConJt/tullon oflmlia 1950, Art. 32-Habea• CorpuJ petltlon-&•pondmt go1ernment official directed tO file Oj/idarit.. :... OffiClal' 1usp•ndedby; government- Susptn1/011 Order whether Can be challengedin /11cldental Proceedt,,Z8. · · · - The second respondent who was the Superintendent or the BbagaJpur Central Jail was suspended by the State Government on ·the groand that he was negligent in providing~ propel- -medicai aid to the blinded undertrial prisoners inside the jail and that he bad failed to make entries in the jail register as reg~rds the physical condition or the ui:tdeririat prisoners.

': ~ I In a Mlscellaneous Petition ·filed by him he claimed ·that bis order of suspeOsion be quashed as it·was passed ma/a fide. with the object ol preventing him from tiling the affidavit as directed by the cOurt. ·;.. ·The. State GovemiDent contestedthe petitiO~ cOntendi. iig that the respondent was suspended for his ·failure to Comply with the requirements of Rule 474 (1) of the Bihar Jail Manual in that he - did iiot scrutinise and sign the entries made in the Admission Register maintained at the jail to satisfy himself whether those entries were correct and whether the relevant rules in regard to the admission of the prisoners were complied with. · He_ did_ not. aJso record any 'special" . ofdei under Rule 474 (2) regarding the medical treatmeiit given or to be given to ~-- the blinded prisoners with the reslllt that they were not sent for examination to any eye specialist. He did... not make 3. report on the blindings of the prisoners and. he ~~pplied .

to newsP_aper_s bis own version of the blindings• . , . Dismissing the petitions;-, ' ,--. : ", HELD: . OrdinarilY 30:older ·or sus~D. Sion cailliot be ~·hau~nied i~. I. a · inCideiltal proceeding but it ·was heaid Since the allegation was th3t the petitioD. Cr was suspended in order 10 defeat the order passed _by this Court. [539 E] · · , ·: er 1, 1980 in the Govermen~ I Aidt YADA'v v. BillAR (Chandrachud, t. J. ), 54! files, which was produced before us by Shri K,G. Bhagat, by which • Shri L. V. Singh, Deputy I. G. P. (Prisons), recommended that for reasons of dereliction of duty the petitioner should be suspended. We find it quite difficult to accept the petitioner's contention that the report of Shri Singh was prepared later and was antedated in order • to justify the order of suspension. We are also unable to appreciate how the State Government could prevent the petitioner from filing an affidavit as directed by this Court, by placing him under suspension.

The petitioner would be free to file his affidavit in spite of the order of suspension and in 1, fact he has filed an affidavit in this Court after he was suspended. During the course of arguments before us, he produced photostat copies of quite a few documents, which also show: that the order of suspension is not calculated to interfere with the direction given by this Court, asking the petitioner to file his affidavit. If we had found that by reason of the order of suspension the petitioner was prevented from filing his affidavit, we would not have hesitated to ask the Government of Bihar to supply copies of necessary documents to the petitioner in order to enable him to file a full and complete affidavit in compliance with our order. The Miscellaneous petitions have therefore to be dismissed.

We would, however, like to state that we are not called upon to consider in tbe,se incidental proceedings, and we have in fact not considered, the question of the validity of the order of suspel. li! on dated December I,1980. The petitioner will be at liberty to cb! lenge that .. order, if so advised, in a properly constituted proceedings, on such grounds as may be open to him including the ground that the order ' was passed ma/a fide. We have only dealt with the narrow question as to whether the order of suspension was passed with the object of preventing the petitioner from filing an affidavit in this Court and on that question we have rejected the petitioner's contention that the order of suspension was passed for that purpose.

We have not inquired into the question whether the order of suspension is vitiated by ma/a fa/es for any other reason, It ls desirable and but proper that the State Government ought not to visit the petitioner with any penalty or punishment for app- A roaching this Court or for having attempted to lay before this Court, what according to the petitioner, was the truth of the matter in regard to the bizarre blindil)gs of the under trial prisoners. Order accordingly. B N. V. K. Petitions dismissed. - ---- • -