PARAS NATH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. Mateen, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4. Since a purely legal question is involved in the writ petition, as such, with the consent of the parties I disposed of this writ petition at the admission stage itself. The order under challenge in this writ petition is order of suspension dated 9-10-2004 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kheri placing the petitioner under suspension indicating therein that the petitioner is not performing duties of armed force and is showing negligence in performance of official duty. In column No. 2 of the impugned order it is indicated that the Circle Officer (Lines) Kheri shall initiate preliminary enquiry within fifteen days and submit his report to the Superintendent of Police, Kheri who has placed the petitioner under suspension.

(2.) SUBMISSION of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry, but as it comes out from the impugned order of suspension itself, the matter with respect to conducting preliminary enquiry is still pending with the Circle Officer (Lines),kheri and since with respect to the charges of misconduct of the petitioner a full fledged enquiry has not been ordered to be initiated rather a preliminary enquiry has been ordered to be drawn against the petitioner to be conducted by the Circle Officer (Lines), Kheri, as such the petitioner cannot be placed under suspension.

(3.) IN view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Tej Pal Singh (supra) the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kheri dated 9-10-2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) placing the petitioner under suspension was uncalled for at this stage when he himself has directed the Circle Officer (Lines),kheri to initiate preliminary enquiry against the petitioner. Thus the order suffers from manifest illegality and cannot be sustained.