Ram Kumar Gautam, Constable vs State of U.P. and Others

Shishir Kumar, J.—Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the order of suspension dated 12.07.2010 impugned in this writ petition has been passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautam, Budh Nagar, in purported exercise of power under Rule 17(1)(a) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which provides that a police officer against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated or proceeded may be placed under suspension.

He further submits that from a perusal of the aforesaid order, Endorsement No. 2 forwarding copy of the order, shows that the Circle Officer, Lines, Gautam Budh Nagar, has been required to hold preliminary enquiry in the matter and submit his report within 7 days meaning thereby that no departmental enquiry is contemplated or pending at this stage, but the respondent has directed the Circle Officer to conduct a preliminary enquiry and during that period the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

He placed reliance on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in case of State of U.P. v. Jay Singh Dixit and Ors. reported in (1975) ALR 64 wherein it was held that the enquiry means the formal departmental enquiry and not a preliminary enquiry.

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is allowed four weeks'' time to file a counter affidavit.

List after expiry of the aforesaid period.

Considering the above submissions, until further orders of this Court, the order of suspension dated 12.07.2010 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed.