# Karnataka v. Muniyalla (supra) as for the - **Citation:** (2012) 1 ILRA 271 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2012-02-27 - **Bench:** Syed Rafat Alam, C.J. Ran Vijai Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/karnataka-v-muniyalla-supra-as-for-the-42117 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Article 226-delay in payment of Death cum retirement benefits-means of social supportdirection of compound interest 10 %- held proper but not to be treated precedent for another case-Rs. 29000/- cost awarded for harassment. Held: Para 8 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of record and for all the reasons stated above, the Court is of the view that l ## Text 1 All] Yogendra Kumar, Constable No. 98 C.P. and others V. State of U.P. and others 271 Judge with a request to decide the same on merits in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the writ Court as and when the case is listed. Cost made easy. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.02.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SYED RAFAT ALAM, C.J. THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH,J. Special Appeal No. - 385 of 2012 Yogendra Kumar, Constable No. 98 C.P. and others ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Vijay Gautam Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. U.P. Police Officer Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) rules 1991Rule-17 (1) (b)-suspension on contemplation of enquiry-contention that no enquiry pending under Rule-17 (1) (b)-suspension order not legally sustainable held-mere quoting wrong provision can not invalidate order if otherwise good-however enquiry be concluded within specific period-Appeal disposed of. Held: Para 6 In the case in hand, since the authority, in the order of suspension, in place of Rule 17 (1) (a), has mentioned Rule 17 (1) (b), the same cannot be said to be invalid in view of the law laid down in State of Karnataka Vs. Muniyalla (supra) as for the reasons given in the impugned order of suspension, the appellants could be placed under suspension. Case law discussed: AIR 1985 SC 470 (Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Rafat Alam, C.J. ) 1. This is an intra-court appeal under the Rules of the Court against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.02.2012. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. It appears that the appellants, along with one S.I. Salamat Kha, being aggrieved by order dated 19.01.2012 placing them under suspension pending enquiry, filed Writ Petition No. 6888 of 2012, which has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 7th February, 2012 directing the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings contemplated against the appellants within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the said order subject to appellants' cooperation in the said proceeding. The aggrieved appellants, therefore, preferred this appeal. 4. Shri Vijai Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the order of suspension, impugned in the writ petition, has been passed under Rule 17 (1) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etah - respondent no.3. He submits that an order of suspension under the said Rule ca only be passed against a police officer in respect of whom an investigation, enquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending. He submits that since there is no investigation/enquiry or trial relating to any criminal charge pending against the appellants, therefore, the order of suspension cannot sustain. 272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012 5. We do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. From the order of suspension, it is apparent that the appellants have been placed under suspension in contemplation of enquiry in respect of certain charges of misconduct. Rule 17 (1) (a) of the Rules provides that a police officer against whom an enquiry is contemplated or is proceeding, may be placed under suspension. However, in the said order of suspension, in place of Rule '17 (1) (a)', Rule '17 (1) (b)' has been mentioned. IIt is well settled legal position that merely because an order has been made under a wrong provision of law, it does not become invalid so long as there is some other provision of law under which the order could be validly made. Mere recital of a wrong provision of law does not have the effect of invalidating an order which is otherwise within the power of the authority making it. (See State of Karnataka Vs. Muniyalla, AIR 1985 SC 470). 6. In the case in hand, since the authority, in the order of suspension, in place of Rule 17 (1) (a), has mentioned Rule 17 (1) (b), the same cannot be said to be invalid in view of the law laid down in State of Karnataka Vs. Muniyalla (supra) as for the reasons given in the impugned order of suspension, the appellants could be placed under suspension. 7. It is also well settled legal position that an officer against whom an enquiry is contemplated or any proceeding is going on, can be placed under suspension. 8. We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. 9. However, considering the submissions made and direction issued by the learned Single Judge to complete the enquiry within a period of three months subject to cooperation being rendered by the appellants, it is provided that in the event the proceeding is not concluded for any justifiable ground despite cooperation rendered by the appellants, it would be open to the respondents to consider to revoke the order of suspension. 10. With the above order, this appeal stands finally disposed of. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDED DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J. THE HON'BLE DINESH GUPTA, J. Special Appeal No.826 of 2006 U.P. Power Corporation Limited & others ...Appellants Versus Smt. Satyabhama Devi ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.K. Mehrotra Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Prabhakar Awasthi Constitution of India, Article 226-delay in payment of Death cum retirement benefits-means of social supportdirection of compound interest 10 %- held proper but not to be treated precedent for another case-Rs. 29000/- cost awarded for harassment. Held: Para 8 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, on perusal of record and for all the reasons stated above, the Court is of the view that learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show its bonafide for not paying the retiral dues to the petitioner-respondent in time,