Dilip Gupta, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner who is a Constable in the Civil Police is aggrieved by the order dated 15th December, 2010 by which the Petitioner has been placed under suspension.
(2.) A perusal of the allegations contained in the suspension order show that on 3rd October, 2010 the Petitioner in a drunken state forced the tempo drivers to take him to Police Station Mungisapur and when refused, he misbehaved with them which act of the Petitioner has lowered the prestige of the Police in the eyes of the public. The order further shows that the Circle Officer has been directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry and submit the report within a week. Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner could not have been suspended during the pendency of the preliminary inquiry and in support of this contention has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court delivered on 6th November, 2009 in Writ Petition No. 55225 of 2009 (Constable 514 C.P. Ravindra Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.) and the judgment delivered on 5th January, 2010 in Writ Petition No. 71821 of 2009 (Constable 79 A.P. Bal Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and Anr.).
(3.) LEARNED Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents has placed before the Court the Full Bench decision of this Court in Raj Veer Singh v. State of U.P., 2010 (10) ADJ 246 and has contended that there is no illegality in suspending the Petitioner during the pendency of the preliminary inquiry.;