JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - The petitioner, a member of the U.P. Police Force, challenges the legality of an order passed on January 20, 1985. 2. The impugned order merely indicates that some first information has been lodged and in that report an allegation has been made that the petitioner committed an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. This petition was presented in this Court on 5th April, 1985 and the order passed was that the matter may be posted on 19th April, 1985, to enable the learned counsel for the State to obtain instructions. It was also indicated that there was possibility of the writ petition being disposed of finally as a very short question was involved in this petition. 3. The learned Standing Counsel is not able to state as to whether any prosecution has been launched against the petitioner. The matter, therefore, rests on the same spot where it was lying. We have, therefore, no option but to accept the averments made in the petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Paragraph 496 of the U.P. Police Regulations. This Regulation says that a police officer is liable to suspension during the pendency of a judicial or departmental enquiry. It is nobody's case that any such enquiry is pending. The precise matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Nurul Hasan v. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow and another 1985(3) LCD 208. This Court has taken the view that in the absence of any pending departmental or judicial enquiry the order of suspension is not sustainable. We respectfully agree with this decision. 5. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 20th January, 1985, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki is quashed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. However, it is made clear that it will be open to the Superintendent of Police to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.