Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—In both these matters common questions of law are involved and have been raised and argued, therefore, as agreed by learned counsels for the parties I have heard both the matters together and the same are being decided by this common judgment under the Rules of this Court at this stage.

2. On behalf of petitioners principal submissions have been advanced by Sri A.P. Singh, Advocate which have been adopted by Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1590 (SS) of 2011.

3. In Writ Petition No. 1735 (SS) of 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the “first writ petition”) a writ of mandamus has been sought commanding respondents not to conduct departmental inquiry and withdraw the same in the light of Government Order dated 1.7.1973 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition).

4. In Writ Petition No. 1590 (SS) of 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the “second writ petition”) the petitioner, a Constable in U.P. Police Service, has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing departmental proceeding alongwith charge sheet dated 1.3.2011 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

5. The facts, in brief, giving rise to present writ petitions as borne out from pleadings are as under.

6. In first writ petition a first information report in Case Crime No. 100 of 2010, under Sections 224/223 IPC lodged against petitioners alleging that they were given custody of one accused, namely, Ramu alias Rizwan alias Raju who was to be produced in F.T.C. No. 6, Lakhimpur, carrying him from Sitapur District Jail, but while returning, the accused absconded from custody of petitioners from train for the reason that petitioners become unconscious by consuming some intoxicating materials. Petitioners were placed under suspension. The suspension orders were challenged in Writ Petitions No. 6081 (SS) of 2010 and 7465 (SS) of 2010 on the ground that order was passed with reference to Rule 17(1)(a) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the “1991 Rules”) by mentioning that since criminal case has been lodged against them though 17(1)(a) could not have applied to such a situation as it would have been governed by Rule 17(1)(b) of 1991 Rules. The submission found favour with this Court and both the writ petitions are allowed by quashing order of suspension. This Court, however, provided liberty to respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, if they so desired.

7. Petitioners thereafter have been served with two charge sheets (Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition). The first writ petition has been filed stating that since a criminal case has been initiated against petitioners, no departmental inquiry can be initiated. In support of submission reliance is placed on Government Order dated 1.7.1973 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) as also Regulations 492 and 493 of U.P. Police Regulations.

8. Sri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2005(23) LCD 1181, the Apex Court’s decision in State of U.P. and others v. Babu Ram Upadhya, AIR 1961 SC 751. He has also referred to judgment of Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in Jangli Prasad v. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 5907 (SS) of 2010, decided on 23.8.2010.

9. In the second writ petition, there is only one petitioner, namely, Karuna Shankar Pandey, who was enrolled in U.P. Police Force in 1981. While posted at Police Line Shrawasti on 18.8.2010 he was deputed for Hawalat duty. He had to proceed from District Jail Behraich to Bhinga Hawalat with other police personnel having custody of certain accused persons who were to be produced in F.T.C. No. 2 in Case Crime No. 616 of 2007, S.T. No. 616 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 506 IPC. While returning, in the way, an accused absconded, in respect whereto a first information report being Case