SHAHROJ ANWAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) H. L. Gokhale, C. J. The following questions are referred for the determination of this Bench : (1) Whether Rule 17 (1) (a) of the U. P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 prohibits passing of a suspension order during the pendency of preliminary enquiry. (2) Whether the Division Bench judgment rendered in Kripa Shanker Prasad & Ors. v. State of U. P. & Ors. , reported in 2004 (1) UPBEC 124, lays down the correct law.

(2.) INASMUCH as the reference refers to Rule 17 (1) (a), we may quote the said Rule, which reads as follows : "17 (1) (a ). A Police Officer against whose conduct an enquiry is contemplated or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the enquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority or by any other authority not below the rank of the Superintendent of Police, authorized by him in this behalf. "

(3.) THE Division Bench in Kripa Shanker Prasad's case (supra) has placed reliance on an earlier judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, in which Rule 17 of the same Rules, was under consideration, i. e. , Hari Nath Sharma v. State of U. P. & Ors. , reported in 1998 (1) LBESR 844 (All) : 1997 (3) ESC 1833. THE Division Bench has also referred to the judgment of the apex Court in Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. THE Union of India, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1854; THE Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors. v. Tarak Nath Ghosh, reported in AIR 1971 SC 823 and Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerathkhar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , reported in AIR 1997 SC 2148. THE Division Bench had allowed the appeal accepting the contention of the appellant that the suspension cannot be ordered during the pendency of preliminary inquiry.