R.R.K.Trivedi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V. C. Tripathi. learned standing counsel. As the petition can be disposed of on a short question of law, learned counsel for parties have agreed that this petition may be decided finally at this stage.
(2.) This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.2.1999 by which petitioner has been suspended from the post of A.S.I. (M) for the allegations mentioned in the order that he made unwarranted comments against superior authorities and indulged in dialogue with them and this way had shown disobedience to his superior authorities. At the end of the order in para 3, Sher Singh, Assistant Commandant had been directed to hold a preliminary inquiry and submit a report within a week.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Rule 17 of U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the order of suspension can be passed when there is full-fledged inquiry and not a preliminary inquiry, the object of which is to collect material for prima facie satisfaction of the disciplinary authority to form an opinion whether full-fledged inquiry should be initiated against the delinquent officer and whether an order of suspension may be passed. Learned counsel has submitted that from a conjoint reading of Rules 5, 13 and 14 also, it is clear that full-fledged Inquiry is required only in cases of major punishment. Under Rule 14 (2), minor punishments are awarded only after informing the police officer in writing about the action proposed to be taken. Major punishment according to Rule 4 are ; dismissal from service, removal from service, reduction in rank including reduction to a lower-scale or to a lower stage in a time scale. Learned counsel has submitted that respondent No. 2 has illegally passed this order under Rule 17 at the stage of preliminary inquiry and the order suffers from manifest error of law. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance in case of State of U. P. v. Jai Singh Dixit. 1974 ALJ 862 (FB) ; Shri A. G. Benjamin v. Union of India (Supreme Court Service Rulings Vol. 13, p. 328 and RE. Rev. B. P. Sugandhar Bishop in Medak v. Smt. D. Dorothy Dayasheela Ebeneser, JT 1996 (6) SC 221.;