1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned counsel or the petitioners and Sri Siddharth Singh Shreenet, learned Standing Counsel for the State- Respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suspension order of the petitioner dated 21st September, 2014 passed by Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur under Rule 17(1)(a) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks ( Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 is wholly authority of law, inasmuch as the Appointing Authority of the petitioner is the Deputy Inspector General of Police as per provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Services Rules, 2008.
3. Learned Standing Counsel submits on the basis of instruction that the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur has been authorized by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi Range, Varanasi to exercise powers conferred under Rule 17 of the Rules, vide authorization dated 31st August, 2014. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition is wholly misconceived, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have carefully considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is not in dispute that the impugned order of suspension of the petitioner dated 21st September, 2014 has been passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners is a Sub-Inspector in Civil Police. The only ground of challenge is that the impugned order is without authority of law for reasons that it has been passed by the Superintendent of Police and not by the appointing authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police.
6. Rule 17 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks ( Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 provides as under :-
Rule 17 Suspension -(1)(a) A Police Office 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 Superintendent of Police, authorized by him in this behalf.
(b) A Police Officer in respect of or against whom an investigation, enquiry or trial relating to a Criminal charge is pending may at the discretion of the appointing authority under whom he is serving be placed under suspension, until the termination of all proceedings relating to that charge, if the charge is connected with his position as a Police Officer or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude. If the prosecution is instituted by a private person on complaint, the appointing authority may decide whether the circumstances of the case justify the suspension of the accused.
(2) A Police Officer shall be deemed to have been placed, or, as the case may be continued to be placed, under suspension by an order of the appointing authority-
(a) with effect from the date of his detention if he is detained in custody whether the detention is on Criminal Charge or otherwise for a period exceeding forty eight hours;
(b) with effect from the date of his conviction if in the event of a conviction for an offence he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed consequent to such conviction.
Explanation.- The period of forty eight hours referred to in Clause (b) of this sub-rule shall be computed from the commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction and for this purpose intermittent periods of imprisonment, if any, shall be taken into account.
(3) Where a penalty of dismissal or removal from service imposed upon a Police Officer is set aside in appeal or on review under these rules and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any other directions -
(a) If he was under suspension immediately before the penalty was awarded to him, the order of his suspension shall,subject to any such directions as aforesaid, be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of th original order of dismissal or removal ;
(b) If he was not under suspension, he shall, if so directed by the appellate or reviewing authority, be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the appointing authority, on and from the date of the original order of dismissal or removal.
Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be construed as effecting the power of the competent authority, in a case where a penalty of dismissal or removal from service imposed upon a Police Officer is set aside in appeal or on removal from service imposed upon a Police Officer is set aside in appeal or on review under these rules on grounds other than the merits of the allegations on which the said penalty was imposed but the case is not remitted for further inquiry or action or with any direction, to pass an order of suspension pending further inquiry against him on those allegations, so, however, that any such suspension shall not have retrospective effect.
(4) Where a penalty of dismissal or removal from service imposed upon a Police Officer is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of law and the appointing authority, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal or removal was originally imposed, whether the allegations remain in their original form are clarified or their particulars better specified or any part thereof a minor nature omitted -
(a) if he was under suspension immediately before the penalty was awarded to him the order of his suspension shall, subject to any direction of the appointing authority, be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal or removal ;
(b) if he was not under suspension, he shall, if so directed by the appointing authority, be deemed to have been placed under suspension on and from the date of original order of dismissal or removal.
(5) (a) Any suspension ordered or deemed to have been or to have continued in force under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoke by any authority specified in sub-rule (1).
(b) where a Police Officer is suspended or is deemed to have been suspended whether in connection with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise and any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him during the continuance of that suspension, the authority competent to place him under suspension may for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, direct that the Police Officer shall continue to be under suspension till the termination of all or any such proceedings.
(6) Subsidiary Rule 199, Financial Hand Book, Volume II, Part II to IV, shall cease to apply to the Police Officers governed by this Rule."
7. It is not disputed that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi Range Varanasi has issued an authorization in favour of Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, dated 31st August, 2014 as under : -
^^Jh ccyw dqekj iqfyl v/kh{kd& tkSuiqjA d`i;k vius QSDl i= la[;k %,lVh&[email protected]] fnukad jfgr vxLr] 2014 dk lUnHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa] ftlds }kjk iz'kkflfud dk;ksZa ds lqxeriwoZd fuLrkj.k gsrq fujh{[email protected]{kd dks fuyEcu dh dk;Zokgh djus gsrq izkf/kd`r fd;s tksu dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA 2- vkids mijksDr vuqjks/k ds dze esa iz'kklfud dk;ksZa ds lqxerkiwoZd fu"iknu gsrq eSa] ,l0 ds0 Hkxr] iqfyl miegkfujh[kd] okjk.klh ifj{ks= m0iz0 okjk.klh] tks fujh{kd ,oa mi fujh{kd @ fefuLVh;y laoxZ ds vf/kdkfj;ksa dk l{ke fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh gWwA 'kklukns'k la[;k& [email protected]%&iq& 2&91&1000&15& 72 fnukad 30-3-91 ds lkFk izkir 'kklu dh vf/klwpuk la[;k% [email protected] N%&iq&2&91& 100&15& 72 fnukad 21-3-1991 ds izLrj & 17 esa fufgr funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj mDr in ds fdlh Hkh vf/kdkjh ds vkijkf/kd ekeys esa lafyIrrk ik;s tkus ds flok; vkidks fujh{[email protected] mifujh[kd ,oa efuLVh;y laoxZ ds leLr dfeZ;ksa dks fuyfEcr fd;s tksu ds fufeRr 'kfDr dk ;Fkkle; mi;ksx djus gsrq izkf/kd`r djrk gWA &,l0 ds Hkxr& iqfyl miegkfujh{kd okjk.klh ifj{ks= mRrj izns'k okjk.klh la[;k% [email protected] lh,&5&10&[email protected] fnukad %& okjk.klh% vxLr & 31] 2014**
8. The Provision of Rule 17(1)(a) of the Rules, 1991 clearly provides that 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 Superintendent of Police, authorized by him in this behalf. The Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur has been authorized by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi Range, Varanasi to exercise the powers conferred under Rule 17 of the Rules 1991. The impugned suspension order has been passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur who was duly authorized by the appointing authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi Range, Varanasi. Thus there is no infirmity in the impugned order of suspension. It has been passed by the Superintendent of Police Jaunpur who was duly authorized by the D.I.G. Police as per provisions of Rule 17(1)(a) of the Rules.
9. In view of these facts, the impugned suspension order cannot be said to be without authority of law. Writ petition is wholly misconceived and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
10. In result the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
Order Date :- 20.11.2014 Mukesh