SUB Vs. STATE U.P. AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of suspension order dated 21.07.2006 passed by Superintendent of Police, Bijnor.

(2.) Brief background of the case, as disclosed in the writ petition, is that petitioner has been performing and discharging duties as Sub Inspector. Report dated 12.07.2006 was submitted by the Circle Officer, Najibabad, mentioning therein that in proceeding under Sec. 107/116 Cr. P.C., petitioner incorrectly submitted report qua three persons, whose age in chalani report was shown as 35, 25 and 19 years respectively, whereas fact of the matter is that all these three incumbents , namely, Fehzan, Ahsan and Furkan were minor, as such petitioner has been negligent in submitting the aforementioned report without making any deep and pervasive enquiry in the same. Based on the said report, order of suspension has been passed and while passing the order of suspension, it has also been mentioned that preliminary enquiry be conducted within eight days and the report be submitted. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Sri S.K. Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner, contended with vehemence that under Rule 17 (1) (a) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, an incumbent can be placed under suspension only in contemplation of formal inquiry or during proceeding of the formal enquiry and Superintendent of Police has no authority to place the petitioner under suspension during continuance of preliminary enquiry and as such the impugned order of suspension is unjustified, and is liable to be quashed.