Nandram Ahirwar vs State of MP and Others

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 24.05.2013 which is an order passed in review by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bhopal Range (City) Bhopal by which the order of punishment dated 06.06.2012 issued by the Superintendent of Police has been set aside and a departmental enquiry has been directed to be instituted against the petitioner, pursuant to which a charge sheet has also been issued to the petitioner on 01.07.2013.

The learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the decisions of this court rendered in the cases of Basanti Gaur Vs. State of M.P. and others, Angad Singh Rathore Vs. State of M. P. and Others, and Rajendra Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P. and Others, submits that the impugned order passed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police, Bhopal Range (City) Bhopal is in violation of Regulation 270 of the Police Regulation which specifically provides that before passing any order, the Reviewing Authority is required to give notice to the employee concerned and after hearing him, take a decision in the matter before proceeding under Regulation 270 of the Police Regulation.

It is submitted that no such notice was ever issued to the petitioner nor was the procedure prescribed therein followed and therefore, in view of the law laid down by this court, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

It is further stated that the order of punishment dated 06.06.2012 could have been reviewed only within six months whereas the authority has done so after eleven months which is not permissible in law.

The learned panel lawyer appearing for the State on advance copy per contra submits that the order passed by the Superintendent of Police had not been passed in regular departmental proceedings and that the authority has only directed issuance of a charge sheet after quashing the punishment and in such circumstances, the contention of the petitioner is misconceived. It is further submitted that in any case, if the authority is required to proceed after issuing the notice to the petitioner, the authority may be given liberty and permission to do so.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that perusal of the impugned order dated 24.05.2013 Annexure P/5 indicates that no show cause notice, as is required under Regulation 270 of the Police Regulation, was issued to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 24.05.2013 is quashed with liberty to the respondents/authorities to proceed further in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Regulation 270 of the Police Regulation by giving notice to the petitioner seeking his response thereto giving him an opportunity of hearing and passing a reasoned order thereafter.

With the aforesaid observations and liberty to the respondents, the petition filed by the petitioner is accordingly allowed. C.C. as per rules.