S.A. KHAN versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

S.A. KHAN versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the suspension order does not refer either expressly or impliedly to the corruption investigation and was confirmed by the Central Government under Rule 3(1)(b) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. A statutory remedy of appeal under Rule 16 is available. No violation of Article 14 is established and the case is not fit for intervention under Article 32. The writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of the statutory remedy.

Parties
Petitioner: S.A. Khan; Respondent: State of Haryana; Respondent: Ch. Bhajan Lal; Respondent: Union of India; Advocate: Indu Malhotra; Advocate: Indu Goswami; Advocate: Mahabir Singh; Advocate: S. Srinivasan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 December 1992
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Maintainability of Writ Petition, Statutory Remedy, Suspension of Government Servant, Availability of Appeal, Mala Fide Exercise of Power
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Service Law Maintainability of Writ Petition Statutory Remedy Suspension of Government Servant Availability of Appeal Mala Fide Exercise of Power

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.A. Khan

Petitioner

State of Haryana

Respondent

Ch. Bhajan Lal

Respondent

Union of India

Respondent

Indu Malhotra

Advocate

Indu Goswami

Advocate

Mahabir Singh

Advocate

S. Srinivasan

Advocate

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether writ petition challenging suspension order is maintainable when statutory remedy of appeal is available under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969
  2. 2 Whether the suspension order violated Articles 14 and 32 of the Constitution of India
  3. 3 Whether the suspension order was passed for mala fide or improper purpose

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the suspension order does not refer either expressly or impliedly to the corruption investigation and was confirmed by the Central Government under Rule 3(1)(b) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. A statutory remedy of appeal under Rule 16 is available. No violation of Article 14 is established and the case is not fit for intervention under Article 32. The writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of the statutory remedy.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Writ Petition dismissed
  • No costs awarded