- (1.) This is an intra-Court appeal under the Rules of the Court against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7.2.2012. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) It appears that the appellants, alongwith one S.I. Salamat Kha, being aggrieved by order dated 19.1.2012 placing them under suspension pending enquiry, filed Writ Petition No. 6888 of 2012, which has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 7th February, 2012 directing the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings contemplated against the appellants within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the said order subject to appellants' cooperation in the said proceeding. The aggrieved appellants, therefore, preferred this appeal.
(3.) Shri Vijai Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the order of suspension, impugned in the writ petition, has been passed under Rule 17 (1) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etah - respondent No. 3. He submits that an order of suspension under the said Rule can only be passed against a police officer in respect of whom an investigation, enquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending. He submits that since there is no investigation/enquiry or trial relating to any criminal charge pending against the appellants, therefore, the order of suspension cannot sustain.;