IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.650 of 2008 Date of Decision: 3.12.2008 Paramjit Singh Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others Respondents Present: Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab Mr.Randhir Singh, Additional A.G. Haryana for respondent No.2 Mr.Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for Mr.Anupam Gupta, Standing Counsel for UT Administration for respondent No.3 Mr.Lakhwinder Singh, Advocate ….. T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) This petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to ensure protection to witnesses in cases involving police officials against whom serious charges have been framed by Courts before whom they are being tried. It also prays for a direction to the respondents to place all such police officials under suspension as are involved in criminal cases. A mandamus directing the trial Courts to expedite the trial of cases involving police officials has also been prayed for. The petitioner, it appears, was booked in connection with a case punishable under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short NDPS Act) in FIR No.19 registered in City Police Station Malaut. He was released from custody Civil Writ Petition No.650 of 2008 2 with the intervention of respectable citizens of Malaut and SSP Muktsar, respondent No.4 in this writ petition. Investigation of the very same case eventually appears to have culminated in a charge sheet against two of the police officials, namely, ASI Krishan Lal, and Constable Balvir Ram, who have been arrayed as respondents No.7 and 8 in the present writ petition. The said respondents are presently facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 18, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mutksar. The petitioner has now filed this petition in which relying upon his experience in connection with the above case, he has prayed for a mandamus in general public interest for placing all police officials facing trial in connection with different criminal cases, under suspension and for a direction to the said respondents to grant protection to all such persons as are witnesses in like cases registered against the police officials. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. In so far as the suspension of an employee on account of his involvement in any criminal case or otherwise is concerned, the power to do so vests with the authorities competent in terms of the relevant rules governing the service conditions of the officials concerned. Whether or not an official who is involved in a criminal or other case has to be placed under suspension, would depend upon a variety of circumstances including the gravity of offence alleged against him. At any rate, the discretion to place the person concerned under suspension is exerciseable only by the authority competent to do so. This Court, in our opinion, would not be justified in issuing a direction to any such authority Civil Writ Petition No.650 of 2008 3 to adopt a thumb rule and place under suspension every such person as happens to be a police official. We say so because any such direction would clutch at the power vested with the authority competent to take the decision. We are also of the view that as and when any question regarding suspension of an employee arises for consideration, the competent authority concerned would keep all the relevant factors in mind and pass an appropriate order on the subject. Beyond that we consider it unnecessary to say anything on this aspect of the matter. The only other question that has been raised by the petitioner is whether a general direction ought to be issued to the Courts trying cases against police officials to provide protection to witnesses appearing against such officials. The petitioner has not drawn our attention to any specific protection under the Cr.P.C. under which a witness protection scheme is framed by the Legislature. Having said that we are of the view that the Courts that are trying police officials as accused would be perfectly justified in passing such orders as may be considered necessary or proper to protect any witness against harassment, threat or injury by or at the instance of the persons, who are facing the trial. The writ petition does not spell out any specific instance where any police official facing trial before a Court may have influenced any witness or otherwise tampered with the evidence because of the lack of the protection to the witness concerned. In the absence of any specific case spelt out in the writ petition, there is, in our opinion, no justification for us to issue a mandamus in general terms. All that can be said is that the Courts are competent to grant protection and are expected to grant the same as and Civil Writ Petition No.650 of 2008 4 when the prosecution or any other person connected with the case seeks such protection. The third and the only other aspect which the petitioner has brought forth in the writ petition is regarding expeditious disposal of cases against police officials. Even here, we see no reason to interfere in public interest. It is common knowledge that a large number of criminal cases are pending in different Courts in the country as also in the States of Punjab and Haryana, where accused are in custody. Cases where the accused are languishing in jails, would certainly deserve priority for early disposal. There are also cases of heinous offence against women and against the weaker sections of the society which too call for expeditious disposal. Suffice it to say that in a situation where the number of cases pending in the Courts is very large, any direction which would operate to prejudice other persons involved in the criminal cases cannot be issued. This would not, however, mean that Courts would not take steps within their powers to expedite disposal of cases against Police officials just as they are expected to do in respect of other accused persons. With the above observations this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE 3.12.2008 (JASBIR SINGH) gk JUDGE