- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard SriSatya Dev Singh,learned counsel for the petitioners. No body appears on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India, the petitioners, who are Constables of Civil Police, seek to challenge the order dated 26th June, 1995 a copy whereof is Annexure T to the petition. BY this order they have been placed under suspension pend ing proposed disciplinary enquiry. Indisputably, the petitioners are covered by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment of Appeal) Rules 1991, hereinafter called the Rules. Under Rule 17 of the Rules a police officer against' whose conduct an enquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding, may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the enquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority or by any other authority not below the rank of Superin tendent of Police, authorised by him in this behalf. Under this rule a police officer in respect of or against whom an investigation, enquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending may at the discretion of the appointing authority under whom he is serving also be placed under suspension until the termination of all proceedings relating to that charge if the charge is con nected with his position as police officer or likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the impugned order it transpires that the petitioners are involved in a criminal case under Section 364/362 of the Indian Penal Code and in respect of this a departmental enquiry is proposed. It is not in dispute that the impugned order has been passed by the competent authority. Thus, the impugned order of suspension of the petitioners has been passed within the four corners of the provisions of Rule 17 of the Rules and the contention of the learned counsel that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and contrary to law must be repelled.;