Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of suspension order dated 21.7.2006 passed by Superintendent of Police, Bijnor.

2. Brief background of the case, as disclosed in the writ petition, is that petitioner has been performing and discharging duties as Sub Inspector. Report dated 12.7.2006 was submitted by the Circle Officer, Najibabad, mentioning therein that in proceeding under Section 107/116, Cr. P.C., petitioner incorrectly submitted report qua three persons, whose age in chalani report was shown as 35, 25 and 19 years respectively, whereas fact of the matter is that all these three incumbents, namely, Fehzan, Ahsan and Furkan were minor, as such petitioner has been negligent in submitting the aforementioned report without making any deep and pervasive enquiry in the same. Based on the said report, order of suspension has been passed and while passing the order of suspension, it has also been mentioned that preliminary enquiry be conducted within eight days and the report be submitted. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

3. Sri S.K. Shukla, learned Counsel for petitioner, contended with vehemence that under Rule 17 (1)(a) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, an incumbent can be placed under suspension only in contemplation of formal inquiry or during proceeding of the formal enquiry and Superintendent of Police has no authority to place the petitioner under suspension during continuance of preliminary enquiry and, as such, the impugned order of suspension is unjustified, and is liable to be quashed.

4. Sri P.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contended that there was material before the competent authority for forming opinion for initiation of formal disciplinary proceeding and merely because the Circle Officer, Najibabad, had been directed to make enquiry and submit report within a week, it cannot be said that power of suspension was lacking in the present case.

5. After respective arguments have been advanced, in order to appreciate the respective arguments, relevant provision which covers the field i.e. Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 is being quoted below :

“Rule 4 : Punishment.—(1) The following punishments may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provide, be imposed upon a Police Officer, namely—

(a) Major Penalties

(i) Dismissal from service;

(ii) Removal from Service;

(iii) Reduction in rank including reduction to a lower-scale or to a lower stage in a time scale;

(b) Minor Penalties

(i) Withholding of promotion;

(ii) Fine not exceeding one months pay;

(iii) Withholding of increment, including stoppage at an efficiency bar;

(iv) Censure;

(2) In addition to the punishments mentioned in sub-rule (1) Head Constables and Constables may also be inflicted with the following punishments :

(i) Confinement to quarters (this term includes confinement to Quarter Guard for a term not exceeding fifteen days extra guard or other duty);

(ii) Punishment Drill not exceeding fifteen days;

(iii) Extra guard duty not exceeding seven days;

(iv) Deprivation of good conduct pay.

(3) In addition to the punishments mentioned in sub-rules (1) and (2) Constables may also be punished with Fatigue duty, which shall be restricted to the following tasks :

(i) Tent pitching;

(ii) Drain digging;

(iii) Cutting grass, cleaning jungle and picking stones from parade ground;

(iv) Repairing huts and butts and similar work in the lines :

(v) Cleaning Arms;

Rule 5 : Procedure for award of punishment.—(1) The case in which major punishments enumerated in Clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 may be awarded shall be dealt with in accordance with procedure laid down in sub-rule (1) of Rule 14.

(2) The cases in which minor punishment enumerated in Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 may be awarded shall be dealt with in accordance with procedure laid down in sub-rule (2