Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CONSTABLE 291 CP TEERTHRAJ KANNAUJIYA versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Constable 291 CP Teerthraj Kannaujiya v. State Of U.P. & Another - WRIT - A No. 26183 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10353 (4 June 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

The petitioner, who was working as a Constable in the Civil Police, is aggrieved by the suspension order dated 21.5.2007. The averments made in the writ petition indicate that the petitioner was tried in Sessions Trial No. 403A of 1997 and by means of the judgment and order dated 12.4.2007, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Kanpur Dehat convicted the petitioner under Sections 147, 120-B and 119 I.P.C. and sentenced him to five years R.I. The petitioner filed Appeal No. 2744 of 2007 in which, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail by means of the order dated 7.5.2007.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once he was released on bail,  the authorities were not justified in passing the suspension order under the provisions of Rule 17(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').

A perusal of Rule 17(2) of the Rules clearly stipulates that a Police Officer shall be deemed to have been placed, or,  as the case may be, continued to be placed, under suspension by an order of the appointing authority with effect from the date of his conviction if in the event of a conviction for an offence he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed consequent to such conviction. There is,  therefore, no infirmity in the suspension order.

Rule 17(5)(a), however, provides that any suspension ordered or deemed to have been or to have continued in force under this rule shall continue to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by any authority specified in sub-rule (1).

In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner may move a representation before the Competent Authority which shall pass an order in accordance with law.

Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition is disposed of.

Dt/- 4.6.2007

Sharma/26183


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.