Appeal No 1406 of 1969
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 17 1969 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No 611 of 1968
The appellant appeared in person
Jagadish Swarup Solicitor General R L Mehta and R N Sachthey for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ray J
This appeal by certificate from the judgment of the High Court at Delhi challenges the order dated 5th July 1968 placing the appellant under suspension
The appellant canvassed two grounds  first that the order of suspension was passed on a report which was made mala fide and therefore the order of suspension was bad secondly the order of suspension was made under sub rule 1 of Rule 7 of the All India Service Appeal and Discipline Rules 1955 and is therefore liable to be quashed
The appellant was appointed to the Indian Police Service in the year 1935
He was posted as Inspector General of Police of the State of Andhra Pradesh on 1 November 1956
He was confirmed as Inspector General of Police Andhra Pradesh in the year 1957
On 14 May 1966 he reached the age of 55 years He however continued to work as Inspector General of Police Andhra Pradesh up to 1 August 1967
He was then posted as Special Inspector General of Police for the revision of Police Standing Orders
123 Some time in the year 1967 the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh ordered that the Chief Secretary should make an enquiry with regard to certain allegations against the appellant
The Chief Secretary recommended that the Vigilance Commissioner in the State of Andhra Pradesh might be requested to look into the matter
The Vigilance Commissioner advised that the enquiry should be conducted by an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation
The Central Bureau of Investigation thereafter made an enquiry
The appellant was given allegations to answer
The appellant submitted explanation and was examined
The Central Bureau of Investigation made a report on the enquiry
On 1 1 July 1968 the Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs made an order placing the appellant under suspension
The appellant alleged as follows
The Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh was inimical and hostile to the appellant since the time of the General Elections in the year 1967
The investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation was conducted by persons who were hostile to the appellant
The Ministry of Home Affairs  Government of India should not have relied on the report because the initiation and the conduct of the enquiry were motivated mala fide on the part of the Chief Minister of the State and other persons
The other contention of the appellant was that under sub rule 1 of Rule 7 of the All India Service Appeal and Discipline Rules 1955 the order of suspension could be made only if disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the Government was satisfied that there should be an order and in the present case the order did not satisfy the provisions of the rule and therefore the order is bad
The pre eminent question in this appeal is whether the order of suspension is in infraction of Rule 7
Rule 7 is as follows 1 If having regard to the nature of the charges and the circumstances in any case the Government which initiates any disciplinary proceeding is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place under suspension the member of the Service against whom such proceedings are started that Government may a if the member of the Service is serving under it pass an order placing him under suspension or b if the member of the Service is serving another Government request that Government to place him under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry and the passing of the final order in the case 124 Provided that in cases where there is a difference of opinion between two State Governments the matter shall be referred to the Central Government whose decision thereon shall be final
2     3 A member of the Service in respect of or against whom an investigation inquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending may at the discretion of the Government under which he is serving be placed under suspension until the termination of all proceedings relating to that charge if the charge is connected with his position as a Government servant or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude
Rule 7 sub rule 1 contemplates suspension when disciplinary proceeding is initiated and the Government is satisfied that it is necessary to place a member of the Service under suspension
It was contended by the appellant that the order of suspension was made under sub rule 1 in the present case without any disciplinary proceedings
The order does not have any reference to sub rule 1 of Rule 7
The order recites first that there are  serious allegations of corruption and malpractice against the appellant secondly that the enquiry made by the Central Government revealed that there is a prima facie case and thirdly that the Government of India after considering the available material and having regard to the nature of the allegations against the appellant the circumstances of the case is satisfied that it is necessary and desirable to place the appellant under suspension
At the hearing of the appeal Mr Solicitor General produced the correct copy of the First Information Report dated 17 August 1967 under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
It will appear from the report that the appellant was charged with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and the time of occurrence was the period 1960 to 1967
Sub rule 3 of Rule 7 states that a member of the Service in respect of or against whom an investigation inquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending may at the discretion of the Government under which he is serving be placed under suspension until the termination of all proceedings relating to that charge
The appellant contended that the appellant was not suspended under sub rule 3 of Rule 7
That is a contention The facts are that there was an investigation and the trial is awaiting relating to a criminal charge against the appellant
The order of suspension has to be read in the context of the entire case and 1 2 5 combination of circumstances
This order indicates that the Government applied its mind to the allegations the enquiries and the circumstances of the case
The appellant has failed to establish that the Government acted mala fide
There is no allegation against any particular officer of the Government of India about acting mala fide
The order or suspension was made under subrule 3 and does not suffer from any vice of infringement of Rule 7
The appellant made allegations against the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and other persons some of whose names were disclosed and some of whose names were not disclosed
Neither the Chief Minister nor any other person was made a party
The appellant filed an affidavit in support of the petition
Neither the petition nor the affidavit was verified
The affidavits which were filed in answer to the appellant s petition were also not verified
The reason for verification of affidavits are to enable the Court to find out which facts can be said to be proved on the affidavit evidence of rival parties
Allegations may be true to knowledge or allegations may be true to information received from persons or allegations may be based on records
The importance of verification is to test the genuineness and authenticity of allegations and also to make the deponent responsible for allegations
In essence verification is required to enable the Court to find out as to whether it will be safe to act on such affidavit evidence
In the present case the affidavits of all the parties suffer from the mischief of lack of proper verification with the result that the affidavits should not be admissible in evidence
The affidavit evidence assumes importance in the present case because of allegations of mala fide acts on the part of the respondents
The appellant alleged that the Union of India made the order of suspension because of the pressure of the Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh
The appellant however did not name any person of the Union of India who acted in that manner and did not implied the Chief Minister as a party
In order to succeed on the proof of mala fides in relation to the order of suspension the appellant has to prove either that the order of suspension was made mala fide or that the order was made for collateral purposes
In the present case the appellant neither alleged nor established either of these features
The appellant contended that the report of the Central Bureau of Investigation was made mala fide
The appellant appeared before the investigation authorities
We ate not concerned with the correctness and the propriety of the report
We have only to examine whether the order of suspension was warranted by the rule and also whether it was in honest exercise of powers
The order of suspension satisfied both the tests in the present case
126 In view of the fact that the criminal case is pending it is desirable not to express any opinion on the merits and demerits of the charges as also the rival contentions of the parties because such an opinion may cause prejudice
The appellant raised a contention as to the vires of the and the validity of the investigation
In view of the fact that sanction for the trial is pending pursuant to the investigation under the First Information Report dated 17 August 1967 the appellant did not want a decision on this point in this appeal because the appellant would raise that contention in the criminal case
We have therefore left open the contention as to the to enable the appellant to agitate that contention if so advised in the criminal trial
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed
In view of the fact that there was no order as to costs in the High Court we are of opinion that each party should bear its costs in this Court
GC Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was appointed to the Indian Police Service in 1935
in November 1956 he was posted in Andhra Pradesh as Inspector General of Police and in August 1967 he was posted as Special Inspector General of Police for revision of Police Standing Orders
In that year the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh ordered the Chief Secretary to make an enquiry with regard to certain allegations against the appellant
The Chief Secretary recommended that the matter be referred to the Vigilance Commissioner who advised that the matter be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation
Thereafter the said Bureau made an enquiry considered the appellant s explanations and made a report
In July 1968 the Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs placed the appellant under suspension
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court at Delhi and failing there filed an appeal in this Court
The appellant s contentions that fell for consideration were i that under sub r
1 of R 7 of the All India Service Appeal and Discipline Rules 1955 the order of suspension could be made only if disciplinary proceeding was initiated and the Government was satisfied that there should be an order in the present case the order did not satisfy this condition and was therefore bad ii that the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh was hostile to him and the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation was conducted by persons hostile to him the Ministry of Home Affairs should not have relied on the report since the enquiry was initiated and conducted mala fide
HELD  i The order in question had no reference to sub r
1 of R 7 but was an order under R 73 which states that a member of the service in respect of or against whom an investigation inquiry or trial is pending may at the discretion of the Government under which he is serving be placed under suspension until the termination of all proceedings relating to the charge
The appellant as appeared from the First Information Report against him stood charged with offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the time of occurrence was the period 1960 to 967
There was an investigation and the trial was awaiting relating to the criminal charge against the appellant
The order of suspension had to be read in the context of the entire case and the combination of circumstances
This order indicated that the Government applied its mind to the allegations the enquiries and the circumstances of the case
The appellant had failed to establish that the Government acted mala fide
There was no allegation against any particular officer of the Government of India about being mala fide
The order of suspension thus made under sub r
3 did not suffer from any vice of infringement of R 71
124 D 125 B iiThe affidavits of the parties in the present case suffered from the mischief of lack of verification with the result that the affidavits should CI70 9 122 not be admissible in evidence
The importance of verification is to test the genuineness and authenticity of allegations and also to make the deponent responsible for allegations
in essence verification is required to enable the court to find out as to whether it will be safe to act on such affidavit evidence
125 C E The affidavit evidence assumed importance in the present case because of allegations of mala fide acts on the part of the respondents
The appellant did not name any person of the Union of India who acted in that manner and did not implied the Chief Minister as a party
In order to succeed on the proof of mala fides in relation to the order of suspension the appellant had to prove either that the order of suspension was made mala fide or that the order was made for collateral purposes
The appellant had neither alleged nor established either of these features
125 F G The allegation of mala fide against the Central Bureau of Investigation did not arise for consideration because what was in question was not its report but the order of suspension which satisfied R 73 and was in honest exercise of powers
125 H