O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) A fine point of controversy in this writ petition has come to be raised whether a 'police officer' within the meaning of U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1991') can be placed under suspension even before the receipt of report of the preliminary inquiry. This question naturally involves the interpretation of Rule 17 of the Rules of 1991, which reads as follows : "17. Suspension.-- 1 (a) A police officer against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding, may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority or by any other authority not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, authorised by him in this behalf. (b) A police officer in respect of or against whom an investigation, inquiry 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.) The controversy has come up in the wake of the following facts. Civil Police Constables Yad Ali, Bhim Yadav and Om Prakash Tewari-petitioners are posted at police station. Sayed Raja in district Chandauli. They were placed under suspension by the Superintendent of Police, Chandauli by order No. 123 of 2000 dated November, 2000, in contemplation of the departmental inquiry with immediate effect in connection with the allegation that they had stopped truck No. DL-1G/4896 in the night of 21.11.2000, for checking the papers relating to registration, etc.. of the vehicle and in the process misbehaved and ill-treated its driver. Simultaneously with the order of suspension, the Circle Officer, Chandauli, was directed to hold a preliminary inquiry and submit his report within seven days (endorsement No. 4 of the suspension order).
(3.) Besides taking the plea that the order of suspension has been passed in a mala fide manner and on the basis of non-existent or incorrect facts, it has been emphatically canvassed on behalf of the petitioners that the order of suspension could not be passed unless the report of the preliminary inquiry had been received and, therefore, the mention of the fact in the text of the order of suspension that the petitioners were being suspended as an inquiry is contemplated', is of no relevance or consequence. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the oft-quoted decision of this Court in the case of Tej Pal Singh v. Deputy inspector General of Police, P.A.C., Agra and another, 1999 (82) FLR 262, in which the scope, object and purpose of the preliminary inquiry as well as regular disciplinary inquiry has been made clear relying upon a decision of this Court in State of U. P. v. Jai Singh Dixit, 1974 ALJ 862 (FB), and the two decisions of the Apex Court, namely, A. C. Benjamin v. Union of India, 1967 (15) FLR 347 (SC) and Rt. Rev. B. P. Sugandhar Bishop in Medak v. Smt. D. Dorothy Dayasheela Ebeneser, JT 1996 (6) SC 221. It was asserted that the decision in Tej Pal Singh's case (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case and consequently, the order of suspension against the petitioners cannot be legally sustained as it has been passed even before the disciplinary authority had an occasion to make up his mind on the objective assessment of the facts as could be disclosed in the preliminary inquiry report (which was yet to be received and considered).;