OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioner h as has prayed for quashing the order dated 7.4.2007 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police , Railways, Agra Fort placing the petitioner under suspension under rule 17 (1) (a) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner while working at police station G.R.P. is indulging in crime with the connivance of the criminals on the railway platform and in the train. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that the charges against the petitioner are very vague and general. He further submits that neither enquiry is pending nor contemplated. He has also placed reliance on the interim order passed by this Court on 14.7.2003 passed in writ petition No. 28380 of 2003, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

(2.) I have considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

(3.) The allegations against the petitioner are allegations while posted at the police station G.R.P. Agra Fort. The allegation against the petitioner is specific that he is in hands-in-glove with the criminals which commits crimes in the trains and at the platform. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the charge is vague and general, cannot be accepted in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Rule 17 (1)(a) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 gives power to the Senior Superintendent of Police to place the police constable under suspension when the disciplinary enquiry is pending or contemplated. The order clearly mentions that the enquiry against the petitioner is contemplated. Thus there is no error in the order and the submission of the petitioner that neither the enquiry is pending nor contemplated cannot be accepted. In so far as the interim order dated 14.7.2003 passed by this Court Annexure-2 to the writ petition is concerned the order of suspension passed against the said petitioner has also been filed at page 29 to the writ petition from which it is clear that the order of suspension had been passed on the ground that no effective steps were taken by the Sub Inspector with regard to incident which had taken place and on the ground of negligence. The allegations in the said case were general and vague and this Court granted interim order dated 14.7.2003. The said interim order does not help the petitioner in any manner.