Short Note : 1. It was contended that the departmental inquiry was entrusted by the Superintendent of Police, (the appointing authority) to the Circle Inspector in August, 1962. After scrutinising the relevant provisions of clause 232 of the M.P. Police Regulations as they stood at the relevant time i.e. August, 1962, it was found that the provisions did permit the Superintendent of Police to entrust an inquiry against a Head Constable to a Circle Inspector also. It appears that right from the trial Court up to the stage of the lower appellate Court, both the parties were under a mistaken notion that the words "or an Inspector" were for the first time inserted in the M.P. police Regulation No. 232 in the year 1964. The mistake was due to filing of an incorrect abstract of Clause 232 of the Police Regulations by the State itself. The aforesaid abstract copy finds place on record at page 34 though the same has not been exhibited. From the perusal of the same, it appears that vide Government order No. 3438/P-III/80/P/49, dated 3-9-1949, C.P. and Berar Police Regulations as they stood then were adopted in the erstwhile State of Vindhya Pradesh also and since then they remained in force in the aforesaid area. However, after merger of the erstwhile State of Vindhya Pradesh in the new Madhya Pradesh the M.P. Police Regulations are now in force throughout the State. During the course of hearing and on scrutiny of the actual position regarding the provisions of Regulation No. 232, it was found that in the year 1949 when these regulations were adopted in the erstwhile State of Vindhya Pradesh, the words "or an Inspector" were already included in Regulation No. 232. Held : Despite opportunity given to both the sides to find out the relevant notification deleting these words from Regulation No. 232, nothing could be shown in that respect. On the contrary, the Government publication of the aforesaid regulation reprinted in the year 1961 too, included the Inspector in the list of those officers to whom the departmental inquiry could be entrusted by the Superintendent of Police. Under these circumstances, the very basis of the argument that the inquiry became vitiated and bad in law so as to render the final order of the punishment also bad in law and illegal disappears. Under these circumstances, the very basis of the argument that the inquiry became vitiated and bad in law so as to render the final order of the punishment also bad in law and illegal disappears. Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to further deal with the question whether merely because the departmental inquiry of a Head Constable, was conducted by a Circle Inspector, the order imposing the penalty by the competent authority in full compliance of the re4uirements of Article 311 of the Constitution of India by serving the second show cause notice, will become bad. Both the Courts below were of the opinion that the inquiry was otherwise proper and fair with all reasonable opportunity to defend. Nothing could be shown as to how any prejudice was caused simply by the fact that the Circle Inspector held the departmental inquiry. There was no allegation of bias or prejudice against the Circle Inspector concerned. Thus, from the reasons stated above the ground, on which both the Courts below have allowed the claim of the plaintiff and have quashed the order of punishment, is held to be not available at all. 2. The learned Government Advocate expressed his inability to justify the aforesaid directions given by the Inspector General of police on the representation in revision. It is well settled that no penalty could be enhanced by the Inspector General of Police without giving further notice and opportunity to the delinquent to show cause against the proposed enhancement. The Inspector General of Police could at the most dismiss the representation or the application for revision. It is, therefore, held that that part of the order made by the Inspector General of Police, which directs removal of the name of the plaintiff horn the fit list for appointment as Head Constable, is bad in law and is hereby quashed. The last order made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police in appeal directing the reversion of the plaintiff from the rank of Head Constable to that of Constable for a period of 5 years is held to be valid. Appeal partly allowed.