DHARAMVEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. Garg, J. A supplementary af fidavit has been filed today, which may be kept on record. Heard Sri S. L. Keshar wani, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner is a constable in Civil Police. He has been placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 13-9-2000, Annexure 1 to the writ petition, on account of his involvement in a criminal case being Crime Case No. 288 of 2000 under Sec tions 221/222/223, IPC, P. S. Shahbad, dis trict Rampur. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that no departmen tal enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner and in the absence of departmental enquiry a constable cannot be placed under suspension in view of Rule 17 of the U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Ap peal) Rules, 1991. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the decision of apex Court in Devendra Kumar Gaur v. Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Ghaziabad and others, (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1631, as well as decision of this Court in Tejpal Singh v. D. I. G. Police, 1999 (2) ESC 1372 (All) ; Jagjit Singh v. State of U. P, 1995 (1) ESC 329 (All); 1995 (1) LBESR 395 (All); Ram Chetan v. State of U. P. and others, 1996 (1) LBESR 47 (All); 1996 (1) ESC 91 (All) and Hari Nath Sharma v. State of U. P. and others, 1998 (1) LBESR 844 (All); 1997 (3) ESC 1883 (All ). In the aforesaid decisions, it has been held that a petty employee, who is a person petty means and has compara tively an insignificant role to pay in the criminal case cannot be continued under suspension for an indefinite period till finalization of criminal trial which is bound to consume a considerable long period. In Hari Nath Sharma's case (supra), it was held that if no departmental enquiry is contemplated against a Govern ment servant, he cannot be placed under suspension. Since legal position is ckar enough, I am not inclined to drag this petition unnecessarily.

(2.) THE writ petition is allowed. THE impugned order of suspension dated 13-9-2000. Annexure 1 to the writ petition is quashed as no departmental enquiry is contemplated. THE petitioner shall be reinstated with immediate effect. How ever, it is made clear that by reason of this order the competent authority shall not be debarred to pass a fresh order of suspen sion if in fact a departmental enquiry is contemplated against the petitioner. Petition allowed. .