Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7164 of 2021 Petitioner :- Smt. Vibha Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner challenges an order of suspension dated 06 January 2021. That order has come to be passed in purported exercise of power conferred by Section 17(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Those Rules, insofar as they are relevant for the purposes of disposal of this petition, read thus:-
"17. Suspension.-- (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 Superintendent of Police, authorized by him in this behalf."
The Court notes that the impugned order has come to be passed by the Superintendent of Police recording that the petitioner was being placed under suspension during and in contemplation of a “preliminary enquiry”. Before the Court it is fairly conceded that the power vested and conferred by Rule 17 of the 1991 Rules can be invoked only when disciplinary proceedings are in fact contemplated. That would require the disciplinary authority being satisfied that prima facie the charges as levelled warrant a further and detailed departmental enquiry being initiated. The power so conferred cannot possibly be understood to be one which can be exercised at a stage where a preliminary enquiry is contemplated. This would establish that the impugned order has come to be passed even before the requisite satisfaction to proceed against the petitioner departmentally had been formed by the respondents.
2 In view of the aforesaid, while it was conceded that the impugned order of suspension would not sustain, learned Standing Counsel drew the attention of the Court to the fact that after the passing of the impugned order, a charge-sheet has been issued. Notwithstanding the above, the issue which would still survive would be whether the order of suspension which had come to be passed even before the requisite satisfaction as contemplated under Rule 17 had been formed can be sustained. In the considered view of this Court while the impugned order would be liable to be quashed for reasons noted above, liberty must stand reserved for the respondents to invoke the provisions of Rule 17 of the 1991 Rules during pendency of the enquiry which has now been initiated.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06 January 2021 is quashed and set-aside. It is left open to the respondents to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 17 of the 1991 Rules during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings now initiated if circumstances and facts of the case so warrant. The issue of reinstatement and other reliefs shall abide by the fresh decision that the respondents shall now take.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Rakesh 2