JUDGMENT : Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The petitioner is a constable in GRP Allahabad. On 19th August, 1997. He was performing his duty at platform Nos. 9 and 10 along with other constables in the evening at about 5.15 a.m. on suspicion he followed a passenger Nand Kishore Gupta who had boarded from Ratnagiri Express train and checked his bag after intercepting him when he was trying to go from the station on a rickshaw. After altercation on opening the bag he found that the passenger was carrying a catch of foreign make arms and ammunitions. In the mean time, some one informed the police of Police Station Civil Lines, Allahabad about foreign arms and ammunitions recovered by the petitioner. Upon receiving the information a large police force from P.S. Civil Lines came on the spot with Sub-Inspector Sri D.K. Asthana and snatched away the passenger and took him away along with the arms and ammunitions recovered by the petitioner after overpaying the petitioner with sheer force. In this regard First Information Report was lodged by the Police of Police Station Civil Lines, Allahabad showing that the seizure was from the jurisdiction of Civil Lines, Police Station, Allahabad area which is on the border of Railway and the Civil Lines area in order to get the praise of high officials though the arrest was made by the petitioner. 3. The incident was immediately informed by the petitioner to the S.H.O. of G.R.P. Allahabad. As the arrested person was forcibly taken away by the Police of Police Station Civil Lines, Allahabad, the S.H.O. of G.R.P. Allahabad became annoyed and he did not mention the description of arrest by the petitioner in the G.D. and threatened the petitioner with dire consequences as all the praise had been taken away by the police of P.S. Civil Lines. The petitioner thereafter was placed under suspension, which was challenged by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30586 of 1997. The writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court on 15.9.1997 with a direction to the authority to complete the enquiry in the matter within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order by the petitioner. Writ Petition No. 30586 of 1997. The writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court on 15.9.1997 with a direction to the authority to complete the enquiry in the matter within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order by the petitioner. It was further provided that if the enquiry is not completed within the aforesaid time, the suspension of the petitioner shall stand automatically revoked. The enquiry against the petitioner was not completed within six weeks as directed by the High Court hence, the suspension order was revoked. However, disciplinary proceedings continued against the petitioner by the Presiding Officer/Deputy Superintendent of Police (Railways), Kanpur under Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officer Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 which were concluded by order dated 21.5.98. However, disciplinary proceedings continued against the petitioner by the Presiding Officer/Deputy Superintendent of Police (Railways), Kanpur under Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officer Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 which were concluded by order dated 21.5.98. The relevant extract of the enquiry report is as under: vkj{kh 1410 v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ ij ;g vkjksi gS fd tc og Fkkuk th vkj ih bykgkckn ij fu;qDr Fkk rks fnukad 19&8&97 dks izkr% 5 cts jRukfxjh ,Dlizsl Vªsu ls vk;s gq, uUn fd'kksj xqIrk uked O;fDr dks LVs'ku ifjlj esa blds }kjk idM+k x;k vkSj mlds lkeuksa dh ryk'kh yh x;h rks uUn fd'kksj xqIrk ds ikl Hkkjh la[;k esa fons'kh gfFk;kj feys ftl ij bl vkj{kh us uUn fd'kksj xqIrk us Hkkjh /kujkf'k ,oa gfFk;kjksa dh ekx fd;kA blh chp Fkkuk flfoy ykbu bykgkckn ds m0fu0 Jh Mh0 ds0 vLFkkuk ogkW igqWps x;s vkSj eky eqyfte vkfn dks ysdj Fkkuk flfoy ykbUl bykgkckn pys x;sA vkj{kh v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ ij yxk;s x;s bl vkjksi ds lEcU/kksa esa ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh dh x;h vkSj miyC/k lk{; ls vkj{kh v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ ij yxk;k x;k vkjksi iw.kZr% izekf.kr ik;k x;k rFkk drZO; ds izfr mis{kk vdZe.;rk ,os ykijokgh iznf'kZr djus dk bls nks"kh ik;k x;kA ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk dh x;h vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh dh fuifr ,oa vU; vfHkys[kh; lk{;ksa ds vuqlkj vkj{kh v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ dks nks o"kZ ds fy, U;wure osrueku ij izR;kofrZr djus dk n.M izLrkfor djrs gq, fuifRr dh ,d izfr ds lkFk dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl fnukad 16&4&98 dks tkjh dh x;h] ftls vkj{kh v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ us izkIr djus ds ckn izLrkfor n.M ds lEcU/kksa esa viuk Li"Vhdj.k fnukafdr 24&4&98 izLrqr fd;k ftldk lw{e ifj'khyu ,oa lgkuqHkwfriwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;kA vkj{kh v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ }kjk vius Li"Vhdj.k esa izLrkfor n.M ds lEcU/k esa ;g rdZ fn;k x;k gS D;ksafd izFke n`"V;k vkj{kh v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ ds fo:) Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e ds vUrZxr dk;Zokgh djus gsrq izekf.kr lk{; miyC/k ugha gqbZ FkhA vkjksfir vkj{kh drZO; ds izfr mis{kk ,oa ykijokgh dk nks"kh ik;k x;kA vkj{kh v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ us ;g rdZ vius Li"Vhdj.k esa fn;k gS fd mlds fo:} dksbZ lh/kh Li"V lk{; lkf{k;ksa us ugha fn;k gSA vkj{kh dk ;g dFku v'kar% Lohdkj djus ;ksX; gS ijarq vkj{kh v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ }kjk izkjfEHkd tkap ds nkSjku fn;s x;s c;ku ls ,oa mlds }kjk fn;s x;s izkFkZuk Ik= ls ;g Li"V gS fd dfFkr vfHk;qDr uUn fd'kksj xqIrk dks vkjkssfir frfFk ,oa le; ij buds }kjk jsyos LVs'ku bykgkckn ds ifjlj esa idM+k x;kA ;g Hkh izekf.kr gS fd vfHk;qDr uUn fd'kksj xqIrk ds ikl dkQh ek=k esa voS/k fons'kh gfFk;kj ¼fjokYoj½ vkfn FksA vkj{kh v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ }kjk ,d mRd`"V ,oa ljkguh; dk;Z fd;k x;k Fkk ijUrq bldh ukle>h ,oa ykijokgh rFkk lgh Ba+x ls dk;Z u djus ds dkj.k fd;s x;s mRd`"V dk;Z dk Js; tuin iqfyl dks izkIr gqvkA vkj{kh v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ dk ;g uSfrd drZO; Fkk fd jsyos LVs'ku bykgkckn ds IysV QkeZ ua0 9&10 ij tc mlus jRukfxjh ,Dlizsl Vsªsu ls mrjs ;k=h uUn fd'kksj xqIrk dks psd fd;k vkSj mls ikl tc i;kZIr ek=k esa vlygs ik;k rks mlds lh/ks IysV QkeZ ua0 ,d ij fLFkr Fkkuk th0vkj0ih0 bykgkckn ij vkuk pkfg, Fkk ijUrq mlus ,slk u djds vfHk;qDr dks e; vlygs ds IysV QkeZ ls flfoy ykbu lkbZM esa ys x;k tgka ls Fkkuk flfoy ykbu bykgkckn dh iqfyl us vfHk;qDr ,oa vlygs dks vius dCts esa ys fy;k ftlds dkj.k ,oa vPNs dk;Z dk Js; tuin iqfyl vkj{kh v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ dh ykijokgh ls izkIr djus esa lQy gks x;h vkSj bl mRd`"V dk;Z dk Js; th0vkj0ih0 dks ugha fey ldk vkj{kh v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ dk ;g d`R; ykijokgh ,oa drZO; ikyu esa dh x;h mis{kk dk ifjpkyu ik;k x;kA vkj{kh v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ }kjk vU; dksbZ rdZ vius Li"Vhdj.k esa ugha fn;k x;k gSA vkj{kh drZO; ds izfr ykijokgh ,oa mis{kk dk nks"kh gSA fQj Hkh lgkuqHkwfr iwoZd #[k viukrs gq, izLrkfor n.M dks la'kksf/kr dj vkj{kh 1410 v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ dks 6 ekg ds fy, U;wure osrueku ij izR;kofrZr djus dk vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA g0 vLi"V iqfyl v/kh{kd jsyos ta0 bykgkcknA 4. Thereafter the petitioner was given notice dated 24.7.98 to show cause why the suspension allowance given to him for the period of suspension should not be treated as salary/allowance for the said period i.e. why salary for the suspension period may not be paid. 5. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 11.8.98. 6. By order dated 27.8.98 it was held by the Police Superintendent (Railways) that the petitioner shall not be disentitled to any salary/allowance for his period of suspension except what has been paid to him as subsistence allowance. The relevant portion of the order dated 27.8.98 is as under: esjs }kjk izdj.k ls lEcfU/kr naM Ik=koyh ,oa ml ij vkj{kh v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ }kjk izsf"kr Li"Vhdj.k dk ifj'khyu fd;k x;k dFku vkj{kh us vius Li"Vhdj.k ds izLrj 1 yxk;r 6 rd esa dksbZ rF;kRed izek.k izLrqr ugha fd;k gS ftl ij esjs }kjk fopkj fd;k tk ldsA izLrj ,d ls yxk;r 6 rd izLrqr dFku ekU; ugha gSA lE;id fopkjkijkUr vkj{kh v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ }kjk izLrqr Li"Vhdj.k larkas"ktud ugha ik;k tkrk gSA vr% ,rn}kjk eSa iqfyl v/kh{kd jsyos ta0 bykgkckn vuqHkkx bl fu"d"kZ ij igqprk gwW fd vkj{kh v'kksd dqekj 'kekZ dks fuycau vof/k fnukad 20&8&97 ls 23&3&98 rd thou fuokZgu HkRrk ds #i esa tks iznku fd;k x;k gS mldks mDr vof/k dk iw.kZ osru@HkRrk ds #i esa ekuk tkrk gSA g0 vLi"V iqfyl v/kh{kd jsyos ta0 bykgkcknA 7. It is urged by the counsel for the petitioner that though the charge against the petitioner was not proved yet by order dated 21.5.98 major punishment of reduction to the minimum pay scale for a period of six months and by order dated 27.8.98 the salary/allowance of the petitioner for the period of suspension was withheld arbitrary and illegally under Rule 4(1)(a)of the Rules. 8. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 has recorded a categorical observation that the petitioner performed a commendable job and there is no proof that the petitioner had demanded any money from Nand Kishore Gupta but even then he has awarded aforesaid punishments to the petitioner only on the ground that all praise has been taken away from the G.R.P. by police of P.S. Civil Lines because of irresponsible and negative attitude of the petitioner towards his duty. 9. 9. The Standing counsel submits that though it is correct that the petitioner had intercepted the passenger carrying the huge quantity of foreign arms and ammunitions but instead of lodging FIR against him in G.R.P. Allahabad he was demanding money from him for letting him go away but in the mean time, on receiving the information the police force from P.S. Civil Lines, Allahabad reached the spot and arrested Nand Kishore Gupta along with arms and ammunitions and lodged an FIR against him at P.S. Civil Lines, Allahabad showing that arrest made by Civil Lines Police. 10. He has further relied upon paragraphs 4 and 11 of the counter affidavit in support of his arguments that the petitioner has rightly been awarded the punishment. 10. He has further relied upon paragraphs 4 and 11 of the counter affidavit in support of his arguments that the petitioner has rightly been awarded the punishment. Paragraphs 4 and 11 are as under: 4- ;g fd ;kfpdk ds en la[;k&2 o 3 esa of.kZr rF; ftl izdkj ls dfFkr gS] eu x<Ur o fujk/kkj gksus ds dkj.k Lohdkj ugha gSSA bl lEcU/k esa ;g voxr djkuk gS fd ;kph us izLrj esa xyr <ax ls ?kVuk dk fooj.k vafdr fd;k gS] tc fd fM;qVhy ds ckn Fkkus esa dh x;h okilh esa bl rjg dh dksbZ ckr vafdr ugha fd;k gSA bl lEcU/k esa lR; ;g gS fd jRukfxjh ,Dlizsl Vsªsu ls vk;s uUn fd'kksj xqIrk uked O;fDr ds ikl ;kph us Hkkjh ek=k esa fons'kh 'kL= ik;k] ijUrq mls fxjrkj djds Fkkus ykus ds ctk; Lo;a voS/k ykHk dekus ds mnns'; ls mlls ckrphr djds mls NksM+us dk bjknk dj jgk Fkk fd mlh le; Fkkuk flfoy ykbUl] bykgkckn dh iqfyl us xksiuh; lwpuk ikdj vfHk;qDr dks e; 'kL= ds idM+ fy;k vkSj vius Fkkus esa ysdj tkdj eqdnek iathd`r djk;k rFkk mls tsy Hkstk] tc fd voS/k 'kL= feyus ds ckn ;kph dk drZO; Fkk fd vfHk;qDr dks fgjklr esa ysdj Fkkus ykdj eqdnek Lo;a dk;e djkrk ijarq ;kph us vius drZO; ds ikyu esa foQy jgk] ftl dkj.k mls nf.Mr fd;k x;kA ;kph dh ykijokgh ,oa drZO; ds izfr dh x;h f'kfFkyrk o mis{kk ds dkj.k gh vfHk;qDr dh fxjrkjh o Hkkjh ek=k esa fons'kh 'kL=ksa dh cjkenxh dk Js; th0vkj0ih0 dks u feydj Fkkuk flfoy ykbUl] bykgkckn dh iqfyl dks izkIr gqvkA ;gkWa ;g Hkh Li"V djuk gS fd tc Fkkuk flfoy ykbUl] bykgkckn dh iqfyl us vfHk;qDr dks fxjrkj djds 'kL=ksa dks cjkendj fy;k rc ;kph us viuh Hkwy dks fNikus ds fy;s Fkkuk izHkkjh th0vkj0ih0 dks ?kVuk dh lwpuk fn;kA dFku foijhr blds furkUr vLkR; o Hkzked gS vkSj mlls bUdkj gSA 11& ;g fd ;kfpdk ds en la[;k&13 esa of.kZr ;kph dk dFku fujFkZd ,oa eux<+Ur u fujk/kkj gSA ;gkWa ;g Li"V djuk gS fd LFkkukUrj.k ,d vyx izfØ;k gSA ;kph ds dk;Z o vkpj.k ds fo#} tkWap izpfyr Fkh] ftl dkj.k fu"i{k tkWp lEiUu djkus ds fy, gh ;kph dks LFkkukUrj.k fd;k tkuk iz'kklfud fgr esa mfpr le>k x;k vkSj iz'kklfud dkj.kksa ls gh mls bykgkckn ls th0vkj0ih0] >kWlh ds fy, LFkkukarfjr fd;k x;kA LFkkukUrj.k ds iwoZ dk;Zokgh o tkWp izpfyr gks pqdh Fkh] ftl dkj.k bykgkckn esa gh tkWp lEiUu dh x;h ftl ij ;kph us dHkh dksbZ vkifIr O;Dr ugha fd;k u iz'u mifLFkr fd;kA bl lEcU/k esa vU; rF; mRrjnkrk }kjk lquokbZ ds le; izLrqr fd;s tk;sxsA 11. On the basis of above it is submitted that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is appropriate and justified. 12. It appears from the enquiry report as well as from the averments made in the counter affidavit that it was the petitioner who had intercepted Nand Kishore Gupta the passenger and recovered a catch of foreign arms and ammunitions in the area of G.R.P. Allahabad. It also appears from the enquiry report that the police of P.S. Civil Lines, Allahabad forcibly took away the accused from the petitioner as they were in large number and lodged FIR in the P.S. Civil Lines showing the seizure from Civil Lines area for which they were showered with praise by the higher officials. This happened because the SHO GRP did not mention the description of arrest by the petitioner in General Diary. Had this been done the matter could have been sorted out between the officials of GRP and the P.S. Civil Lines or by the higher officials. 13. From the record it is also apparent that the Enquiry Officer has categorically stated that the arrest was made by the petitioner in GRP area and that the petitioner has done commendable job he ought to have been given praise and reward but he has been imposed major punishment of reduction to the minimum pay scale and withholding of suspension allowance for the suspension period because the then SHO GRP did not mention the report of the petitioner in the G.D. due to annoyance and to teach him a lesson. In fact the Enquiry Officer ought to have called the then SHO GRP and clarified the matter, which from the records does not appear to have been done. 14. The Enquiry Officer has also given a finding that no case of corruption was made out against the petitioner, hence in the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not perform his duties or there may be any dereliction of duty by him. 15. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The DIG Railway, Allahabad is directed to look into the matter and after verifying the facts if possible compensate the petitioner in a befitting manner for the commendable work done by him.