SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 30th January, 2003 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the Superintendent of Police (Railway), Agra, whereby the petitioner has been suspended pending enquiry.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the suspension order refers to Rule 17(1) (b) of the U. P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which cannot be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Rule 17 (1) (a) of the Rules confers power of suspension as in contemplation/pendency of enquiry against a subordinate police officer. This has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is settled that mere wrong mention of the provisions of law will not vitiate the order passed by the authority, if the authority has power to pass the order. In this view of the matter, this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of suspension is without jurisdiction cannot be accepted. No other infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that though the order is dated 30th January, 2003 but the petitioner has not been served with the charge-sheet.