- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner chal lenges the order dated 6-9-1997 by which he has been suspended. The said order is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ peti tion.
(2.) MR. K. R. Sirohi, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the said order of suspension has not been issued in contemplation of an enquiry but by way of punishment solely on the basis of finding of guilt in preliminary enquiry. From the said order it does not transpire that the disciplinary proceeding is contemplated against the petitioner. He has also alleged mala fide against the respondents. He has also alleged that even on merit no order of suspension could be issued against the petitioner. Mr. D. R. Chaudhry, learned Addi tional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that the order of suspension has been issued in contempla tion of an enquiry. After a preliminary enquiry the petitioner was found guilty as such the authority had put the petitioner under suspension. Charge-sheet and ap pointment of enquiry officer is to be fol lowed later on. According to him it is too technical to interfere with the said order at this stage because the authority is empowered to issue an order of suspension in contemplanation of pending enquiry. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri K. R. Sirohi and learned Additional Chief Standing Coun sel Shri D. R. Chaudhry.
(3.) IT appears from the preamble of the impugned order that in a preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of certain charges in the result whereof he was placed under suspension with imme diate effect. From the text of said expres sion it does not appear that the petitioner was placed under suspension either in con templanation of an enquiry of pending en quiry. On the other hand it has been ex pressed that he was found guilty in the preliminary enquiry. As a result of such finding of guilt in preliminary enquiry the petitioner has been suspended. Now here from the impugned order it appears that the enquiry officer has been appointed or any charge-sheet was directed to be issued. In that view of the matter, it can not be said that suspension is in contemplation of an enquiry or pending enquiry. On the basis of which, it appears, that the order of suspension is by way of penalty without holding any enquiry. In the absence of any indication of mind that enquiry is con templated it is not possible to hold other wise. If it appears from the text of the order that enquiry is contemplated, in that event, this court may not interfere. But in the text of the order it does not indicate anywhere, even in its body, that the en quiry is being contemplated. Even the copies of the order have been sent to cer tain officers, there also nothing has been indicated that charge-sheet is to be issued or that enquiry officer has been appointed or that the order is issued in contempla tion of an enquiry. In that view of the matter, I am unable to accept the conten tion of Mr. Chaudhry, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Mr. Chaudhry further contends that the order of suspension has been is sued under Rule 17 (1) (a) of the U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter called as the Rules ). By reason of such order of suspension, it is presumed that enquiry is contemplated even if it is not so expressed in the order. Mere issuing an order under Rule 17 (1) (a) itself signifies contemplanation of an enquiry. Inasmuch as according to him clause (a) (1) of Rule 17 is resorted to only when disciplinary proceeding is con templated and not otherwise. Therefore, if the said provision is resorted to it is to be presumed that the enquiry is con templated even it does not in so many words spell out the same in the order itself.;