JUDGMENT R.H. Zaidi, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and also perused the record.
2. By means of this petition the petitioner challenges validity of order dated 16.3.1998 whereby the petitioner who is holding post of Inspector of Police, has been placed under suspension by the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the provisions of Rule 17 of U. P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 only the appointing authority or any other authority under whom the petitioner is working, is empowered to pass order of suspension. The Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareli has no jurisdiction to pass the order, therefore, the impugned order of suspension is liable to be quashed.
4. It is well-settled law that the order of suspension can be passed by the appointing authority or the authority superior to the appointing authority, punishing authority as well as by the controlling authority. A reference in this regard is made to the following decisions :
1. Satya Pal Sawhney v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1980(1) SLR 136.
2. Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, 197,5 (1) SCC 421.
3. State of U. P. v. Jai Singh Dixit. 1975 (2) SLR 754 (FB).
5. Further. Regulation 496 of U. P. Police Regulations provides as under :
"496. All Police Officers are liable to suspend during the departmental or judicial inquiry into a charge of misconduct. The suspension of an officer may be ordered by the authority who has the power to give him any form of departmental punishment, e.g., the Superintendent of Police may suspend an Inspector even though he cannot dismiss him.
The Superintendent should suspend until the trial is over, any Police Officer whose prosecution has been ordered by him or by Deputy Inspector General, or who is prosecuted as a result of a Magisterial inquiry if a prosecution is instituted by a private person on complaint, the Superintendent of Police must decide whether the circumstances of the case Justify the suspension of the accused.
The suspending authority will pass provisionally orders at the time of suspension, fixing the rate of suspension allowance under Fundamental Rule 53 (c) and also for the payment of whole allowance upto a limit of 3 months, in the case of an officer who maintains a horse. If the proceedings are unlikely to be concluded within this period of 3 months, the officer will be at liberty to dispose of his horse."
6. In view of the aforesaid decisions and provisions of Regulation 496, Superintendent of Police. Rae Bareli, had the jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner, submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the contrary, therefore, cannot be accepted.
7. The writ petition has got no merits and is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is, however, observed that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be conducted and concluded expeditiously preferably within a period of 4 months from the date a certified copy of this order is communicated to the competent authority.
8. Subject to what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed in limine.