Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners states that the order of suspension dated 22.05.2010 impugned in this writ petition has been passed by Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, in purported exercise of power under Rule 17(1)(a) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which provides that a police officer against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated or proceeded may be placed under suspension.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners further submits that from a perusal of the aforesaid order, Endorsement No. 150/2010 forwarding copy of the order, shows that the Circle Officer, Sadar, has been required to hold preliminary enquiry in the matter and submit his report within 7 days meaning thereby that no departmental enquiry is contemplated or pending at this stage, but the respondent has directed the Circle Officer to conduct a preliminary enquiry and during that period the petitioners have been placed under suspension. They placed reliance on a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in case of State of U.P. v. Jay Singh Dixit and Ors. reported in, (1975) ALR 64, wherein it was held that the enquiry means the formal departmental enquiry and not a preliminary enquiry.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to file a counter affidavit.;