Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83740 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5026 of 2025 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankur Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri Ankur Verma, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions in the matter the same is taken on record and a copy of which is also supplied to learned counsel for petitioner. 3. As per the instructions a preliminary fact finding enquiry was got conducted into the matter on the written complaint of Kamaljeet Singh dated 03.02.2025 addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur that at Sarsawan Check Post certain constables in the name of checking of the car, got his car stopped and demanded money. He was not in possession of the amount demanded which was to the tune of Rs.35,000/-. He was only having cash of only 20,000/- therefore, he was asked to pay Rs. 20,000/- then and there and further required to pay on phonepe Rs. 15,000/-. The screenshot of the deposit of Rs.15,000/- was also placed before the enquiry committee and one salesman of the petrol pump at Police Station Sarsawan also intimated to the committee that Santosh Yadav had got the payment transacted into account through Phonepe app bearing phone No. 7905033396. Upon perusal of the enquiry report it further transpires that the petitioner upon being interrogated in the preliminary fact finding enquiry admitted that the money that was taken was known to every member of the team and it was all distributed. 4. Shri Ankur Verma, learned counsel for petitioner sought to rebut the finding in the preliminary fact findings enquiry report on the ground that his bank account details are available with him which do not demonstrate that any such deposit was made. He claims that bank account statements which he is placing before the Court is of the Central Bank of India, Betiahata Chouraha, Gorakhpur bearing Account No. 3209344321 and this is the only bank account which he is having. Upon a query as to why did he admit before the preliminary fact finding enquiry officer that money was taken and was in the knowledge of others members of the party that had intercepted the car, Shri Verma states that this statement has been wrongly quoted. Learned counsel for petitioner has also placed reliance upon an order of this Court dated 15.12.2023 passed in Writ A No. 6751 of 2023, Ajay Singh v. State of U.P. in which for non-compliance of relevant paragraph 5 (iv) of the Government Order dated 06.12.2023 entire proceedings were quashed including the suspension order. 5. In the considered view of the Court, whether the petitioner had taken the money or not or whether it got deposited into his bank account and whether the bank account he is having his registered cell phone number 7905033396 is the same account in which the money was transacted all are questions of fact that can be determined by the enquiry officer when the oral enquiry is held and the petitioner is required to place the document as evidence in his support and the departmental witnesses shall also be producing evidence who may further be cross-examined by him. From a bare reading of the judgment cited before this Court I find that peculiar facts in that case were that the complaint itself was oral one and not a written one and, hence, the said judgment is distinguishable on facts. 6. In view of the above, therefore, since the petitioner has been prima facie indicted in the preliminary fact finding enquiry, I do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the suspension order at this stage. Let the enquiry be properly held in the matter in which the petitioner shall be participating and cooperating. It is expected that the chargesheet shall be issued to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today to which the petitioner shall be submitting its reply within a further period of two weeks. The departmental enquiry, if any, shall stand concluded within a further period of two months and the disciplinary proceedings shall ultimately be concluded within a further period of one month of the submission of enquiry report. Petitioner shall also be paid subsistence allowance for the period he remained under suspension. It is however, clarified that in the event disciplinary proceedings are not concluded as directed hereinabove, within the time period as prescribed for the suspension order dated 21.02.2025 shall stand revoked and the petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement and payment of salary. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Nadeem Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad