Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) In a mafia style operation, a local MLA having a criminal record was allegedly gunned down in broad daylight on 25.1.2005. It is alleged that the person behind the killing was the defeated candidate and brother of a sitting Member of Parliament. The incident led to a public outcry. Sporadic incidents of public outrage was shown by the citizens, openly demonstrating on the streets protesting the lackadaisical attitude of the administration in not handling the situation. The police and the District Administration watched as silent spectators from a distance which further aggravated the matter. To quell the sporadic violence of riots and arson, the administration acted in arresting the persons named in the First Information Report. The petitioner who was the Station Officer of Dhoomanganj Police Station, within whose jurisdiction the incident took place, was also suspended by an order of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad dated 30.1.2005. This order of suspension has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.
(2.) Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Garg, the Additional Chief Standing counsel and Sri V.K. Rai, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suspension order had been issued pending a preliminary enquiry. The learned counsel submitted that the purpose of holding a preliminary enquiry was to determine whether a prima-facie case for holding a departmental enquiry was made out or not and until that opinion was formed, no suspension order could be passed. Further, Rule 17[1][a] of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank [Punishment and Appeal] Rules 1991 does not contemplate suspension during holding of a preliminary enquiry and that the suspension order could only be passed pending contemplation of an enquiry or during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in Kripa Shanker Prasad and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2004[1] UPLBEC 124, in which it was held that the suspension order could not be passed during the pendency of the preliminary enquiry.;