Ram Naresh Pal vs State of M.P. and Others

N.K. Mody, J.—The prayer in the petition is for quashment of the order (Annexure P-5), dated 4-11-2011 passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the order (Annexure P-2), dated 25-2-2009 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (respondent No. 4), whereby penalty of Rs. 500/- was imposed on the petitioner, was set aside, the present petition has been filed. Short facts of the case are that respondent No. 4 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, of which a reply was submitted by the petitioner. After perusal of the reply, in which the petitioner admitted the alleged misconduct, respondent No. 4 imposed penalty of Rs. 500/- on the petitioner. Thereafter, charge-sheet was issued. In the departmental enquiry, wherein an application was filed by the petitioner that since the petitioner has already been punished, therefore, he cannot be punished twice. At that stage, the order (Annexure P-5) was passed by respondent No. 3, whereby the order (Annexure P-2) was set aside. Against which, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order (Annexure P-5) is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that without giving an opportunity of hearing, respondent No. 3 cannot set aside the order, which ultimately affects the petitioner. It is submitted that the petition be allowed.

Smt. Vinita Phaye, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents submits that after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the order (Annexure P-5) was passed, as it is specifically stated in the return. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the respondents. It is submitted that the petition be dismissed.

From perusal of the record, it is evident that the order (Annexure P-2) was passed on 25-2-2009, while the order (Annexure P-5) has been passed on 4-11-2011, i.e., after more than two and half years.

Regulation 270 of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations reads, as under:--

(1) Every order of punishment of exoneration, whether original or appellate shall be liable to revision suo motu by any authority superior to the authority making the order.

(2) Every appellate order by a Final Appellate Authority shall be liable to revision by such Final Appellate Authority, on application made in that behalf by the person against whom the order has been passed.

Explanation:-- For the purposes of this clause, the expression "Final Appellate Authority" means the final authority empowered to hear an appeal under Police Regulation 262.

(3) The provisions of Regulations 266, 267, 268 and 271 shall, as nearly as may be, apply to an application for revision.

(4) The Revising Authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing exonerate or may remit, vary or enhance the punishment imposed or may order a fresh enquiry or the taking of further evidence in the case:

Provided that it shall not vary or reverse any order unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them for being heard.

From bare perusal of Clause 4 of Regulation 270, it is evident that Revising Authority is empowered to remit, vary or enhance the punishment imposed or may order a fresh enquiry, but as per the proviso, the order cannot varied or reversed, unless notice has been served on the party interested and an opportunity of being heard is given.

From perusal of the record, it appears that there is nothing on the basis of which it can be said that any show-cause notice was issued by respondent No. 3. though it is averred in the reply that the show-cause notice was given, of which reply was filed by the petitioner. But, this fact is not supported by any documentary evidence. Apart from this, the order (Annexure P-2), whereby the petitioner was punished is dated 25-2-2009, while the order passed by the Revisional Authority is dated 4-11-2011. i.e., after more than two years.

In the matter of Bhagwat Vs. State of M.P., reported in Current Civil Law Judgments 1987 Note 1, this Court has held that in absence of any limitation in Police Regulations. DIG Police cannot revise the order, in exercise of suo motu revisional powers, after about 13 months. In the matter of State of M.P. Vs. Prahlad, reported in 1988 MPWN 113, this Court has held that the punishment cannot be reviewed suo motu, after expiry of six months. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the impugned order dated 4-11-2011 (Annexure P-5) stands quashed.

No order as to costs.