JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mohd. Ateeq Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishal Verma, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State-respondents. 2. Since in both the aforesaid writ petitions, the impugned orders of suspension is same i.e. 30.12.2019 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki and facts and circumstances of the case are also same inasmuch as in case of Sub-Inspector, Surendra Pratap Singh, the show cause notice under Rule 14(2) has been issued but at the dictate of State Government, the said show cause notice was cancelled and the Sub-Inspector Surendra Pratap Singh has been placed under suspension. In the same manner, the Sub-Inspector Jitendra Kumar Singh has been placed under suspension. The State Counsel has received common instructions in both the cases vide letter dated 08.02.2020 and same stand has been taken by the Authority in both the cases, therefore with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, both the matters are decided by the common order. 3. This Court has passed the order dated 31.01.2020 as under: "Heard Mohd. Ateeq Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned suspension order dated 30.12.2019, passed by the Superintendent of Police, District-Barabanki. The case set-forth by learned counsel for the petitioner is that for the allegation in question the departmental inquiry against the petitioner was initiated by the Competent Authority under Rule 14 (2) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (here-in-after referred to as the "Rules, 1991"). If any inquiry is initiated under the aforesaid rules, the incumbent can be provided minor punishment only if the charges are proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner has demonstrated that a show cause notice dated 25.07.2019 was to the petitioner to that effect, which has been annexed as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. He has further submitted that despite the aforesaid show cause notice being issued to the petitioner under Rule 14 (2) of the Rules, 1991, the Joint Secretary of the Department of Home has directed the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki vide order dated 18.12.2019 (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition) to set aside the show cause notice being issued against the petitioner under Rule 14 (2) of the Rules, 1991 and place the petitioner under suspension. Therefore, pursuant to the direction being issued by the Joint Secretary of the Department of Home the petitioner has been placed under suspension by means of an order dated 30.12.2019. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the law is settled on the point that an employee can only be placed under suspension if the allegations are so serious entailing the major punishment if the charges and allegations are proved and in the present case even the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Rule 14 (2) of the Rules, 1991. He has further submitted that the law is also settled on the point that the order of suspension can be passed only by the Appointing/ Disciplinary / Punishing Authority. As the impugned order has been passed on the dictate of the authority who is not a Competent Authority, therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasons the impugned suspension order dated 30.12.2019 is liable to be set aside. The matter requires consideration. List this petition on 10.02.2020 as fresh to enable the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to seek complete instructions in the matter, failing which, the interim relief application of the petitioner may be considered on the next date." 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, learned Addl. C.S.C. has produced the instructions vide letter dated 08.02.2020 preferred by the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki addressing to the Addl. C.S.C. of this Court enclosing their letters dated 18.12.2019 and 04.07.2019, the same is taken on record. 5. As per the aforesaid instructions, the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki has admitted that in compliance of the letter dated 18.12.2019 preferred by the Joint Secretary of the Department, the petitioner has been placed under suspension. 6. Section 17 of U.P Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 provides that a police officer against whose conduct an enquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding, may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of enquiry in the discretion of Appointing Authority or by any other Authority not below the rank of Superintendent of Police authorized by him in this behalf. It clearly means that to place any employee under suspension is the sole discretion of the Appointing Authority. He may place any employee under suspension applying his independent mind and independent satisfaction to that effect. 7. It clearly means that to place any employee under suspension is the sole discretion of the Appointing Authority. He may place any employee under suspension applying his independent mind and independent satisfaction to that effect. 7. In the present case, the Superintendent of Police has followed the direction of Special Secretary of the Home Department who has suggested that the petitioner should be placed under suspension and his show cause notice issued under Rule 14(2) be set aside. The Superintendent of Police, Barabanki has followed the aforesaid direction and not only placed the petitioner under suspension, but also the above notice issued against the petitioner under Rule 14(2) has been cancelled by the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki as shown in the instructions letter dated 08.02.2020. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court In Re: Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India (ALPAI) & Ors. vs. Director General of Civil Aviation & Ors. reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435 vide para 26 and 27 has considered the identical controversy relating to competence of passing any order and held that only the Competent Authority can pass such orders. 9. The paras 26 and 27 are reproduced herein under: "26. The contention was raised before the High Court that the Circular dated 29.5.2008 has been issued by the authority having no competence, thus cannot be enforced. It is a settled legal proposition that the authority which has been conferred with the competence under the statute alone can pass the order. No other person, even a superior authority, can interfere with the functioning of the Statutory Authority. In a democratic set up like ours, persons occupying key positions are not supposed to mortgage their discretion, volition and decision making authority and be prepared to give way to carry out commands having no sanctity in law. Thus, if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the behest or on suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be patently illegal. (Vide: The Purtabpur Co., Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar, Chandrika Jha v. State of Bihar, Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab and Manohar Lal v. Ugrasen). 27. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Pancham Chand & Ors. (Vide: The Purtabpur Co., Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar, Chandrika Jha v. State of Bihar, Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab and Manohar Lal v. Ugrasen). 27. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia and Pancham Chand & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh observing that an authority vested with the power to act under the statute alone should exercise its discretion following the procedure prescribed therein and interference on the part of any authority upon whom the statute does not confer any jurisdiction, is wholly unwarranted in law. It violates the constitutional scheme." (emphasis supplied) 10. Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the relevant material available on record as well as the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India (supra), I hereby quash the suspension orders dated 30.12.2019 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki which is appended to the writ petitions. 11. The opposite party is directed to reinstate the petitioners and post at an appropriate place where the Disciplinary Authority deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the decision. 12. Consequences to follow. 13. It is needless to say that the Disciplinary Authority may pass any appropriate orders but following due procedure of law. 14. In view of the aforesaid terms, both the writ petitions bearing Nos. 2713(S/S) of 2020 and 2748 (S/S) of 2020 are allowed. No order as to costs.