D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) BY an order dated 24th October, 1997, the petitioner has been suspended on the alleged ground that the inquiry is contemplated against him. This order has, been assailed by Sri Uma kant, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the ground that by reason of Regulation 496 of U. P. Police Regulations, no order of suspension can be issued unless departmental inquiry or judicial inquiry has started. According to him, there is nothing in the regulation to empower the competent authority to issue an order of suspension only in contemplation of the enquiry. Therefore, the order of suspension is void and without jurisdiction. His second contention is that even in the impugned order of suspension, it was mentioned that copies were being sent to one sri Narain Singh, Circle Officer, for sending the enquiry report within seven days, upon receipt of the said copy of the order of suspension. Therefore, according to Sri Uma Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner, preliminary inquiry has not yet been held. Therefore, he submits that unless there is sufficient satisfaction on the part of respondents, there cannot be any contemplation of inquiry, upon which the petitioner can be suspended. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the said instruction is in effect an order for holding preliminary inquiry, on the basis whereof decision is to be taken as to whether inquiry would be proposed or contemplated against the petitioner or not. Therefore, according to him the order of suspension has been issued without application of mind. ( 2 ) LEARNED standing counsel, on the other hand, contends that asking for the report does not contemplate that it was a preliminary inquiry for the purposes of making up of the mind. According to him the, allegations indicated in the impugned order of suspension, are too serious and grave. From the order itself, it appears that the authority had made up his mind to hold an inquiry in the conduct of the petitioner. The said instruction is contained at the bottom of the order, does not indicate holding of any preliminary inquiry. He next contends that Regulation 496 of U. P. Police Regulation is subject to subsequent enactment of U. P. Police Officers of subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 1991 Rules ). The said instruction is contained at the bottom of the order, does not indicate holding of any preliminary inquiry. He next contends that Regulation 496 of U. P. Police Regulation is subject to subsequent enactment of U. P. Police Officers of subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 1991 Rules ). By reason of subsequent enactment, the said Police Regulations stood eclipsed by the provisions contained in 1991 Rules. According to him, 1991 Rules confer jurisdiction on the competent authority to suspend a delinquent even in contemplation of the inquiry. Therefore, according to him there is no infirmity in the order of suspension. ( 3 ) SRI Uma Kant relies on the decision in the case of Nurul Hasan v. Senior Superintendent of police and others, 1985 UPLBEC 1329, in support of his contention, that no order of suspension can be issued in contemplation of the injury. Para 496 of Police Regulation provides as under : "all Police officers are liable to suspension during a departmental or judicial enquiry into a charge of misconduct. The suspension of an Officer may be ordered by the authority who has power to give him any form of departmental punishment e. g. , the Superintendent of Police may suspend an Inspector even though he cannot dismiss him. " The said rule clearly indicates that a police officer is liable to suspension during a departmental or Judicial enquiry into a charge of misconduct. The word "during a departmental inquiry" means the period after commencement till the conclusion of departmental or Judicial enquiry. It cannot include the period when departmental inquiry is not pending. A departmental inquiry becomes pending as soon it is commenced. The inquiry is commenced only when charge-sheet is issued. It does not commence on the issue of the order of suspension or on taking of decision for holding an inquiry against a delinquent. The inquiry does not commence when it is in the form of a proposal or in the contemplation in the mind of the authority concerned. Therefore. Regulation 496 of Police Regulations contemplates suspension only during departmental or Judicial inquiry namely when it is pending after its commencement till it is concluded. It does not include the period before issue of charge-sheet. Therefore. Regulation 496 of Police Regulations contemplates suspension only during departmental or Judicial inquiry namely when it is pending after its commencement till it is concluded. It does not include the period before issue of charge-sheet. ( 4 ) IN the case of Nurul Hasan (supra), it was so held that under Regulation 496 of the Police regulations, suspension can be ordered only when departmental or Judicial inquiry is started. Such ratio has been laid down in Para 26 of the said decision, which runs as under : "26. Applying the above meaning to the phrases "during departmental inquiry" or "during a judicial inquiry" used in Para 496, it would mean throughout the continuance of the departmental or judicial inquiry. That a departmental or judicial inquiry should have started in implicit in both the phrases. Suspension under Para 496, therefore, can be ordered only when the departmental or judicial inquiry has started. It can be so ordered at any stage during the continuance of the judicial or departmental inquiry. The question then is ; when does a departmental inquiry start? it is obvious that it does not start on the receipt of a complaint against an employee. On receipt of a complaint the officer competent in that behalf has to apply his mind to the facts stated in the complaint and to take a decision whether or not a departmental or judicial inquiry is to be held into allegations made against a particular employee or for that matter, a police officer. Once that decision is taken the inquiry has to be held in the manner indicated in Para 490 of the Regulation and as a first step, a charge-sheet is to be issued. " ( 5 ) IN the said case, it was urged that Rule 49a of the U. P. Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules would be attracted in case disciplinary proceeding is held against a police officer. The said question was dealt with the observation that U. P. Police Regulation was framed under Section 7 of the Police Act and, therefore, the same has statutory force. Therefore, rule 49a of U. P. C. C. A. Rules cannot be attracted in the case where Police Regulation does apply. In the said Judgment, the observations were made to the extent that the Police Regulation may be amended. Therefore, rule 49a of U. P. C. C. A. Rules cannot be attracted in the case where Police Regulation does apply. In the said Judgment, the observations were made to the extent that the Police Regulation may be amended. The said observation finds place in Para 51 of the said Judgment in the following manner : "51. Before proceeding to consider the individual cases we may observe that the State government should immediately consider the question of amending the Police Regulations so as to bring them at par with Rule 49a of the U. P. C. C. A. Rules which is uniformally applicable to all Government servants except those like police officers who are governed by special statutory rules. Rule 49a as noticed earlier, empowers are appointing authority to place an employee under suspension either in contemplation of enquiry or pending departmental inquiry. An employee can also be placed under suspension under Rule 49a if there is a criminal case against him which is either under investigation, inquiry or a trial. These situations, i. e. , contemplated departmental inquiry or investigation of a criminal case are not envisaged by the Police regulations with the result that even if a Police Officer has committed an act of gross misconduct, he cannot be placed under suspension till a departmental inquiry is initiated against him. Similarly he cannot be placed under suspension even if he has committed a cognizable offence until the trial has begun. It is now well known that the standard of discipline in the police Force has deteriorated and the Police personnel who are entrusted with the task of maintaining law and order have been found, times out of number, to be law breakers and involved in the commission of serious cognizable offence but on account of the limited scope of the provisions of Para 496 of the Police Regulations immediate action by way of suspension cannot be taken against them even though the situation as also gravity of the offence might require immediate suspension. The standing counsel has informed us that by D. O. Letter No. 2847/8-2-100 (29)/75-Grah Police Anubhag-2, dated 10th January, 1977 from the commissioner-cum-Home Secretary to Inspector General of Police. U. P. , Lucknow suggestions and proposals were invited for amending the Police Regulations but it appears that no notice was taken of the suggestions and the Police Regulations have not been amended. U. P. , Lucknow suggestions and proposals were invited for amending the Police Regulations but it appears that no notice was taken of the suggestions and the Police Regulations have not been amended. If the Police authorities still do not wake up to realise the need for an amendment in the Police Regulations so as to when widen the scope of their powers to place the police officer under suspension in appropriate cases even before the initiation of departmental Inquiry or Judicial trial, we cannot but think their stars. " ( 6 ) IT appears from the said judgment itself that the court was concerned with the standard of discipline in the Police Force which is well known to have deteriorated. The Police personnel who are entrusted with the task of maintaining law and order have been found, times out of number, to be law breakers and involved in the commission of serious cognizable offence, but due to limitation of Para 496 of the Police Regulations, immediate action by way of suspension cannot be taken against them, even though the situation and the gravity of the offence require immediate suspension. ( 7 ) THUS I see that the court was not oblivion of such a situation which circumstances do require immediate suspension. But because of limitation of the expression used in Regulation 496, such step was wholly outside the competence of the disciplinary authority. Whenever such step was taken, aid of judicial process was obtained to forestall such steps, since such step was not framed because of limitated scope of Regulation 496 and, therefore, the observation tainding of suggestion to amend Police Regulation was incorporated in the said judgment. ( 8 ) SUBSEQUENTLY U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 were framed in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 46 read with Sections 2 and 3 of 1861 Act and all other powers enabling the Governor in these behalf, in supersession of all existing rules issued in this behalf, with a view to regulate departmental proceeding, Punishment and Appeal of Police Officers of Subordinate Rank of U. P. Force. By reason of Rule 2 of 1991 Rules, the said Rule applies to all the Police Officers of subordinate rank below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. By reason of Rule 2 of 1991 Rules, the said Rule applies to all the Police Officers of subordinate rank below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Admittedly the petitioner is sub-Inspector of Police, who is subject to 1991 Rules. This fact is not disputed by Sri Uma Kant, in his usual fairness. Rule 17 of 1991 Rules in sub-section (1) clause (a) provides as follows : " (a) A Police Officer against whose conduct an enquiry is contemplated, or is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the enquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority or by any other authority not below the rank of superintendent of Police, authorised by him in this behalf. " ( 9 ) THE said Rule thus enables the disciplinary authority to place a Police Officer under suspension when enquiry is contemplated against his conduct or enquiry is pending till the conclusion of the enquiry. The shortcoming of Regulation 496 has thus been overcome. When the decision in the case of Nurul Hasan (supra) was rendered in the year 1985, 1991 Rules were not in existence and were not, therefore, considered. On the other hand, it appears that the said rule has been framed pursuant to the concerned expression used in the said judgment in Para 51 which also contends suggestion to amend the Regulation. Therefore, the said Judgment has laid down a foundation for the enactment of the present Rule relating to suspension. Thus it cannot be said that it also runs contrary to the said decision in any manner. Therefore, the submission of learned standing counsel to the effect that by virtue of Regulation 17 (1) (a), the Police Officer of subordinate rank can be suspended even in contemplation of enquiry, as has been done in the present case, appears to be correct. However, Sri Uma Kant sought to negative the said contention of learned standing counsel with the submission that Rule 14 of 1991 Rules prescribes that departmental proceeding is to be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Appendix I. Referring to Appendix i, Sri Uma Kant, contends that upon institution of formal enquiry, charge-sheet is to be issued in writing communicating the grounds to the delinquent and affording him adequate opportunity to defend, himself and such charge-sheet is to be issued in Form i appended to the rules. In the present case, no such step has been taken and no charge-sheet has been issued communicating the grounds to the petitioner. Therefore, according to him, Rule 17 (1) (a) is subject to Rule 14 and since Rule 14 has not been complied with, the contemplation as intended in Rule 17 has not come into being and cannot be said to have any legal existence. If there is no existence of contemplation in law, in that event it cannot be said that the inquiry is contemplated added with the fact that at the bottom of the order of suspension, a report was sought for within a period of seven days. ( 10 ) RULE 14 of 1991 Rules is subject to the provisions contained in the said Rule, Rule 17 comes after Rule 14. Rule 14 prescribes procedure for conducting departmental proceeding and, therefore, procedure in Appendix i is the procedure as soon departmental proceeding is instituted. The expression "institution of formal inquiry" occurring in Appendix i, contemplates that the said procedure is to be followed after the formal enquiry is commenced, The commencement comes into being only when formal charge-sheet is issued. By the issue of charge-sheet, formal enquiry is instituted. As soon formal inquiry is instituted, it is no more in contemplation. It ceased to be the proposal to hold inquiry. On the other hand, it materialises and results into formal inquiry and the enquiry becomes pending on the institution or commencement. There are two parts in Regulation 17 (1) (a ). The suspension can be ordered when enquiry is contemplated. Is one part, and the other part is that suspension can be ordered when enquiry is proceeding. The expression "proceeding" means "pending". The proceeding can proceed only when it is instituted, till it is instituted, the proceeding is only in contemplation, if it is proposed to be held. Therefore. Appendix i is subject to Rule 17, namely, suspension can be ordered even when formal enquiry is not instituted and is only in contemplation. Therefore, the submission made by Sri Uma Kant despite all efforts cannot be agreed to. Therefore, a Police Officer can be suspended even in contemplation of an enquiry without the formal institution of the enquiry. Therefore. Appendix i is subject to Rule 17, namely, suspension can be ordered even when formal enquiry is not instituted and is only in contemplation. Therefore, the submission made by Sri Uma Kant despite all efforts cannot be agreed to. Therefore, a Police Officer can be suspended even in contemplation of an enquiry without the formal institution of the enquiry. ( 11 ) THOUGH much stress was laid down by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question referring to the order of suspension that mind was not made up to propose enquiry on account of reference to the Sub-Inspector for enquiry report within seven days, yet from very expression used, it cannot be said that the mind was not made up and that preliminary enquiry report was asked for. The very tenor of the expression used in the order shows that the enquiry was contemplated and was proposed against the delinquent officer. The proposed charges were crystllised in paras 1 and 2 of the order itself. Though it is not necessary to inform the particular of the charges when enquiry is contemplated and order of suspension was issued, yet the proposal having been founded on the crystallised charges, the same having been disclosed, it cannot be said that there was any doubt in the mind of the disciplinary authority about the proposal to hold enquiry in the charges. Mere mention at the bottom of suspension order that enquiry report should be sent within seven days, does not indicate from the order and the expression used therein that the disciplinary authority was yet to make up his mind awaiting the enquiry report. This is not a case where disciplinary authority is in double mind. Therefore, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the contention raised by Sri Uma Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 12 ) IN the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, it would be open to the respondents to expedite the enquiry. This Court hopes and trusts that the enquiry would be completed within a period of one year. There will be, however, no order as to costs. ( 13 ) LET a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within a week. .