D. K. SETH, J. The petitioner chal lenges the order dated 6-9-1997 by which he has been suspended. The said order is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ peti tion. 2. Mr. K. R. Sirohi, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the said order of suspension has not been issued in contemplation of an enquiry but by way of punishment solely on the basis of finding of guilt in preliminary enquiry. From the said order it does not transpire that the disciplinary proceeding is contemplated against the petitioner. He has also alleged mala fide against the respondents. He has also alleged that even on merit no order of suspension could be issued against the petitioner. 3. Mr. D. R. Chaudhry, learned Addi tional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, contends that the order of suspension has been issued in contempla tion of an enquiry. After a preliminary enquiry the petitioner was found guilty as such the authority had put the petitioner under suspension. Charge-sheet and ap pointment of enquiry officer is to be fol lowed later on. According to him it is too technical to interfere with the said order at this stage because the authority is empowered to issue an order of suspension in contemplanation of pending enquiry. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Shri K. R. Sirohi and learned Additional Chief Standing Coun sel Shri D. R. Chaudhry. 5. It appears from the preamble of the impugned order that in a preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of certain charges in the result whereof he was placed under suspension with imme diate effect. From the text of said expres sion it does not appear that the petitioner was placed under suspension either in con templanation of an enquiry of pending en quiry. On the other hand it has been ex pressed that he was found guilty in the preliminary enquiry. As a result of such finding of guilt in preliminary enquiry the petitioner has been suspended. Now here from the impugned order it appears that the enquiry officer has been appointed or any charge-sheet was directed to be issued. In that view of the matter, it can not be said that suspension is in contemplation of an enquiry or pending enquiry. On the basis of which, it appears, that the order of suspension is by way of penalty without holding any enquiry. In that view of the matter, it can not be said that suspension is in contemplation of an enquiry or pending enquiry. On the basis of which, it appears, that the order of suspension is by way of penalty without holding any enquiry. In the absence of any indication of mind that enquiry is con templated it is not possible to hold other wise. If it appears from the text of the order that enquiry is contemplated, in that event, this court may not interfere. But in the text of the order it does not indicate anywhere, even in its body, that the en quiry is being contemplated. Even the copies of the order have been sent to cer tain officers, there also nothing has been indicated that charge-sheet is to be issued or that enquiry officer has been appointed or that the order is issued in contempla tion of an enquiry. In that view of the matter, I am unable to accept the conten tion of Mr. Chaudhry, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 6. Mr. Chaudhry further contends that the order of suspension has been is sued under Rule 17 (1) (a) of the U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter called as the Rules ). By reason of such order of suspension, it is presumed that enquiry is contemplated even if it is not so expressed in the order. Mere issuing an order under Rule 17 (1) (a) itself signifies contemplanation of an enquiry. Inasmuch as according to him clause (a) (1) of Rule 17 is resorted to only when disciplinary proceeding is con templated and not otherwise. Therefore, if the said provision is resorted to it is to be presumed that the enquiry is con templated even it does not in so many words spell out the same in the order itself. 7. The said contention seems to be devoid of any merit for the simple reason that the order of suspension is issued in contemplation of enquiry. If no enquiry is contemplated and an order of suspension is issued in that even if cannot bean order suspension within the meaning of rule 17 (1) (a ). In the present case nothing has been contemplated as it appears from the circumstances of the case as indicated above. If no enquiry is contemplated and an order of suspension is issued in that even if cannot bean order suspension within the meaning of rule 17 (1) (a ). In the present case nothing has been contemplated as it appears from the circumstances of the case as indicated above. On the other hand suspension was sought to be issued as a result of finding of guilt on a preliminary enquiry. There can not be any suspension on the basis of guilt on the preliminary enquiry. Only when on the basis of preliminary enquiry an enquiry is contemplated the delinquent can be put under suspension. Mere passing of an order under Rule 17 (1) (a) does not ab solve the respondents from indicating for mation of opinion that the order has been passed in contemplanation of an enquiry without indicting the same in the order itself. The close look to the order does not specify that even impliedly it is indicated that the enquiry is contemplated. The order of suspension can only be issued when an enquiry is contemplated and it is to be so indicated in the order itself- either expressly or by necessary implica tion. The said test having not been ful filled, the contention of Mr. Chaudhry can not be accepted. 8. Therefore, so far as the order it relates to the suspension contained in An-nexure-1 is hereby quashed. However, this order will not prevent the respondents to hold the enquiry and if it is so advised to pass fresh order of suspension if cir cumstances so warranted in accordance with law if the enquiry is proposed or con templated or pending enquiry as the case may. 9. Unless there is an order suspen sion passed afresh in accordance with law within fortnight, the order relating to posting of the petitioner at the police line shall stand revoked after expiry of 15 days from the date of copy of this order is produced before the concerned respon dent. 10. The writ petition is thus disposed of. 11. There will, however, be no order as to cost. 12. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned Counsel for the petitioner within 48 hours. Petition disposed of. .