Devendra Kumar Arora, J.-

By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order of suspension dated 18.11.2009, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition as well as a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioners in service with all consequential benefits.

2. The petitioners no. 1 to 3 are Constables of Civil Police and petitioner no. 4 is Head Constable. The petitioners have been placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 18.11.2009 on the allegation that on 12.10.2009 a raid was made in villages Sonai, Kanjera and Nahar Ka Purwa and seven persons were arrested alongwith equipment, raw material and unauthorised liquor under the provisions of Excise Act. During inquiry from villagers it was revealed that unauthorised liquor was being prepared in that village for long time with the collusion of the police employees deputed in the beat.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order of suspension suffers from lack of inherent jurisdiction inasmuch as the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lucknow who passed the impugned order of suspension of the petitioners, is neither the Appointing Authority nor Disciplinary Authority, nor has jurisdiction, authority and competence to place the petitioners under suspension. The Appointing Authority of the petitioners is District Superintendent of Police and not Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lucknow who is higher in rank to the Appointing Authority of the petitioners. He is not empowered by the Appointing Authority to place the petitioners under suspension. He further argued that the impugned order of suspension is wholly discriminatory, selective and hit by Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as S/Sri Kaushal Kishore Bajpai, Head Constable, Kanhaiya Lal Yadav, Constable, Awadhesh Kumar, Constable, and other police personnels posted in the same beat, have neither been placed under suspension nor proceeded departmentally in any manner whatsoever. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that neither the departmental proceedings are contemplated against the petitioners nor charges have been framed, even Enquiry Officer has not been appointed so far. The allegation that there was negligence on the part of the petitioners in discharge of their duties and unauthorised liquor was being made in collusion with the police, is absolutely wrong, baseless and without any basis. There was no material with the opposite parties to place the petitioners under suspension. The allegation contained in the inquiry report, on the basis of which the petitioners have been placed under suspension, falls in the category of minor punishment and therefore the impugned order of suspension is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without any authority of law.

4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that during 18.02.2009 to 10.11.2009 the petitioners arrested as many as 39 persons under the provisions of Excise Act and recovered equipments, raw material and unauthorized liquor from several villagers falling under the beat where they were posted. Similarly, six persons of village Nihar Purwa were arrested by the petitioners on 04.03.2009 and 28.09.2009 under the provisions of Excise Act. The petitioners have done each and every thing within their reach and control.

5. As per Rule 17 (1) (a) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (here-in-after referred to as the Rules, 1991), it is the appointing authority or by any other authority not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, authorized by him in this behalf can place a police officer under suspension pending the conclusion of enquiry and since Deputy Inspector General of Police/ Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow is not an appointing authority of the petitioners as such he has no power to place the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document