D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) By an order dated 24th October, 1997, the petitioner has been suspended on the alleged ground that the inquiry is contemplated against him. This order has, been assailed by Sri Uma Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the ground that by reason of Regulation 496 of U. P. Police Regulations, no order of suspension can be issued unless departmental inquiry or judicial inquiry has started. According to him, there is nothing in the regulation to empower the competent authority to issue an order of suspension only in contemplation of the enquiry. Therefore, the order of suspension is void and without jurisdiction. His second contention is that even in the impugned order of suspension, it was mentioned that copies were being sent to one Sri Narain Singh, Circle Officer, for sending the enquiry report within seven days, upon receipt of the said copy of the order of suspension. Therefore, according to Sri Uma Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner, preliminary inquiry has not yet been held. Therefore, he submits that unless there is sufficient satisfaction on the part of respondents, there cannot be any contemplation of inquiry, upon which the petitioner can be suspended. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the said instruction is in effect an order for holding preliminary inquiry, on the basis whereof decision is to be taken as to whether inquiry would be proposed or contemplated against the petitioner or not. Therefore, according to him the order of suspension has been issued without application of mind.
(2.) Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, contends that asking for the report does not contemplate that it was a preliminary inquiry for the purposes of making up of the mind. According to him the, allegations indicated in the impugned order of suspension, are too serious and grave. From the order itself, it appears that the authority had made up his mind to hold an inquiry in the conduct of the petitioner. The said instruction is contained at the bottom of the order, does not indicate holding of any preliminary inquiry. He next contends that Regulation 496 of U. P. Police Regulation is subject to subsequent enactment of U. P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 1991 Rules). By reason of subsequent enactment, the said Police Regulations stood eclipsed by the provisions contained in 1991 Rules. According to him, 1991 Rules confer jurisdiction on the competent authority to suspend a delinquent even in contemplation of the inquiry. Therefore, according to him there is no infirmity in the order of suspension.
(3.) Sri Uma Kant relies on the decision in the case of Nurul Hasan v. Senior Superintendent of Police and others, 1985 UPLBEC 1329, in support of his contention, that no order of suspension can be issued in contemplation of the injury. Para 496 of Police Regulation provides as under : "All Police officers are liable to suspension during a departmental or judicial enquiry into a charge of misconduct. The suspension of an Officer may be ordered by the authority who has power to give him any form of departmental punishment e.g., the Superintendent of Police may suspend an Inspector even though he cannot dismiss him." The said rule clearly indicates that a police officer is liable to suspension during a departmental or Judicial enquiry into a charge of misconduct. The word "during a departmental inquiry" means the period after commencement till the conclusion of departmental or Judicial enquiry. It cannot include the period when departmental inquiry is not pending. A departmental inquiry becomes pending as soon it is commenced. The inquiry is commenced only when charge-sheet is issued. It does not commence on the issue of the order of suspension or on taking of decision for holding an inquiry against a delinquent. The inquiry does not commence when it is in the form of a proposal or in the contemplation in the mind of the authority concerned. Therefore. Regulation 496 of Police Regulations contemplates suspension only during departmental or Judicial inquiry namely when it is pending after its commencement till it is concluded. It does not include the period before issue of charge-sheet.;