HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5816 of 2026 Court No. - 53 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. The present contempt application has been preferred alleging willful defiance of the order dated 14.01.2026 passed in Writ-A No. 19670 of 2025, order whereof is quoted hereinunder:- "1. Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ambuj Maurya, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Jitendra Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Sri Jitendra Prasad, learned Standing Counsel has made a statement at bar that he is well equipped with the instructions and he is in a position to argue the matter and he does not propose to file any affidavit. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Sub Inspector on 05.07.1995, however, while he was posted as Incharge Inspector, Thana Ghunchai, District Pilibhit, he has been placed under suspension in view of the provisions contained under Rule 17(1)(a) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 on 20.11.2025. 4. Questioning the suspension order, the present writ petition has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the impugned suspension order cannot be sustained for more than one reason firstly, though in the suspension order, it has been recited that inquiry is contemplated but while inviting attention towards page 27 of the paper Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Adarsh Singh, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Prakash Singh, Inspector .....Applicant(s) Sukirti Madhav, Superintendent Of Police .....Opposite Party(s) book, a communication issued by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit on 22.11.2025 addressed to the writ petitioner, he has been called within three days for preliminary inquiry and secondly, the entire allegations are based upon news paper cuttings regarding cows slaughter and negligence on the part of the writ petitioner in not taking step to eliminate chances of the said incident. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Sachchidanand Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. & others: Writ-A No. 69308 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2023. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the charges are grave and serious, however, he could not dispute the fact that a preliminary inquiry has been conducted first and it is after getting the inputs, a decision is to be taken whether it is a case of suspension or not. 7. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record. 8. Apparently, the writ petitioner happens to be a Sub Inspector, his services are governed under the 1991 Rules. Plainly and simply, preliminary inquiry is to be conducted first and after obtaining the inputs a decision is to be taken whether it is a case of suspension or not. Here, in the present case, it is apparent from the suspension order dated 21.11.2025 recites that the inquiry is contemplated whereas on the next date i.e. 22.11.2025, the Additional Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit had required the presence of the writ petitioner for preliminary inquiry. In the opinion of the Court, preliminary inquiry is to be conducted first and after obtaining the inputs and being satisfied with the materials that there happens to be a case of suspension then the suspension order is to be passed. The said issue is no more res integra as the said issue is decided in the case of Sachchidanand Tripathi (supra). 9. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed. The suspension order dated 21.11.2025 passed by Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit is set aside. Liberty is accorded to the respondents to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months." 2. This Court on 31.08.2026 sought instructions. 3. Today, instructions have been produced dated 20.09.2026 of the CAPL No. 5816 of 2026 2 Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit, annexing therewith the copy of the order dated 15.09.2026, which is quoted hereinbelow:- ":: आदेश :: िनरीक्षक ना०पु० प्रकाश िसह, पीएनओ-952511441 तत्काल प्रभारी िनरीक्षक, थाना-घुंघिचहाई वतर्मान तैनाती पुिलस लाइन पीलीभीत को इस कायार्लय के समसंख्यक आदेश िदनांिकत: 21-11-2025 के द्वारा आरोप " जनपद पीलीभीत से समाचार पत्रों 1. िहन्दुस्तान में िदनांक 17.11.2025 में प्रकािशत शीषर्क घुंघिचहाई क्षेत्र में गोकशी की घटनाओं से लोगों में आक्रोश " 2. दैिनक जागरण में िदनांक 15.11.2025 में प्रकािशत शीषर्क " तस्कर गोवंशीय पशु का वध कर मांस लेकर हुए फरार " जैसी घटनाओं में थाना घुंघिचहाई क्षेत्र में अपराध िनयंत्रण हेतु कोई साथर्क प्रयास न िकये जाने, गौकशी की घटनाओं पर प्रभावी अंकु श न लगाये जाने एवं अिभयुक्तों के िवरुद्ध प्रभावी िविधक कायर्वाही न िकये जाने के संबंध में बरती गयी िशिथलता एवं अपने पदीय दाियत्वों का सही प्रकार से िनवर्हन न िकये जाने के संबंध में " िनलिम्बत िकया गया था तथा िनरीक्षक प्रकाश िसह के द्वारा माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद में िरट यािचका संख्या: 19670/2025 प्रकाश िसह बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य व अन्य योिजत की गयी थी। माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा िदनांक 14.01.2026 को सुनवाई करते हुए इस कायार्लय के िनलम्बन आदेश िदनांिकत: 21.11.2025 को िनरस्त िकया गया था िजसके अनुपालन में इस कायार्लय के समसंख्यक आदेश िदनांक 20-01-2026 के द्वारा इनके िवरुद्ध प्रचिलत जांच/िवभागीय कायर्वाही पर िबना प्रितकू ल प्रभाव डाले िनलम्बन से बहाल िकया गया था। अतः उपरोक्त आदेश के आलोक में िनरीक्षक ना०पु० प्रकाश िसह, पीएनओ-952511441 को िनलम्बन अविध िदनांक 21-11-2025 से िदनांक 20-01-2026 तक के पूणर् वेतन/भत्ते प्रदान िकये जाने के आदेश पािरत िकये जाते हैं। पत्रांक: न-176/2025 िदनांक: िसतम्बर 15, 2026 पुिलस अधीक्षक पीलीभीत प्रितिलिप: 1. प्रितसार िनरीक्षक, पुिलस लाइन पीलीभीत को 02 प्रितयों में इस िनदेर्श के साथ प्रेिषत िक इसकी एक प्रित संबंिधत कमीर् को िवतिरत कराकर िद्वतीय प्रित पर प्रािप्त के िदनांक सिहत हस्ताक्षर लेकर तामीला प्रित इस कायार्लय को उपलब्ध कराना सुिनिश्चत करें। 2. प्रितसार िनरीक्षक, पुिलस लाइन पीलीभीत को िह०आ०पु० में अंकन करने हेतु। 3. आंिकक, पीलीभीत को आवश्यक कायर्वाही हेतु। 4. CAPL No. 5816 of 2026 3 चिरत्र पंिजका िलिपक प्रथम को आवश्यक कायर्वाही हेतु।" 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though the applicant has been reinstated and post quashing of the suspension order, he is entitled to payment of the consequential benefits. However, according to him, the suspension order also encompasses itself with an order of attachment and once the suspension order stood quashed then the position which was available on the date prior to the passing of the impugned order in the writ petition would stand restored. Thus, the applicant is to be assigned work and the attachment order will go. 5. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant whether before the writ Court any such argument was raised with regard to the order relating to attachment, the answer is in negative. 6. Be that as it may, with regard to assignment of the work which existed prior to the passing of the order impugned in the writ petition, it is always open for the applicant to insist for de-attaching him. 7. Since there has been substantial compliance of the order of the writ Court, the contempt application stands consigned to record, leaving it open to the applicant to raise his grievance before the authority concerned. September 23, 2026 Rajesh CAPL No. 5816 of 2026 4 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad