Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 695 (MP)

Suresh Pal Singh v. State of M. P.

2012-07-10

SUJOY PAUL

body2012
Judgment The petitioner was served with a charge sheet and after disciplinary proceedings, he was inflicted with a punishment of fine by order dated 22.2.2007. Thereafter, Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) passed an order, Annexure P/1, dated 12.6.2007 and directed the Inspector General (IG), Chambal Range, Gwalior that the punishment is not commensurate with the misconduct of the petitioner and the said punishment of fine of Rs.500/- was set aside by him and then IG was directed to review the same. In turn, the IG issued show cause notice dated 26.6.2007 to the petitioner as to why this punishment should not be enhanced to withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter the IG by order, Annexure P/2, dated 29.10.2007 inflicted the punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. This order was communicated to the ADGP with the endorsement that it is in furtherance of the order dated 12.6.2007 of the ADGP, Annexure P/1. 2. Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance of Regulation 270 of the Police Regulation submits that no doubt the said regulation provides power to the higher authorities to review the disciplinary proceedings but once the said review power is invoked by ADGP in passing the order, Annexure P/1, it was not permissible for him to send the matter midway to the I.G. to complete further proceedings. In other words, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no power under regulation 270 to delegate the powers midway to some other authority when a particular superior authority has undertaken the review to some extent. 3. Per Contra, Mrs. Sangita Pachauri, learned Deputy Government Advocate supported the order and submits that it is well within the scope and ambit of regulation 270. She submits that a very lenient punishment has been imposed on the petitioner in view of his misconduct. 4. I have heard the parties and perused the record. 5. A bare perusal of regulation 270 clearly shows that power to review is vested with any superior police officer than the officer, who has imposed the punishment. In that eventuality, both the officers, i.e., ADGP as well as IG were the superior officers and were competent to invoke regulation 270. I have heard the parties and perused the record. 5. A bare perusal of regulation 270 clearly shows that power to review is vested with any superior police officer than the officer, who has imposed the punishment. In that eventuality, both the officers, i.e., ADGP as well as IG were the superior officers and were competent to invoke regulation 270. However, twin questions are required to be answered in this matter -- (i) whether one reviewing authority after partially undertaking the review can entrust the job to any other authority ? (ii) whether the authority to whom it was entrusted midway can act dispassionately ? 6. In the present case the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority was reviewed under regulation 270 by ADGP and he raised his eyebrows against punishment of fine with a finding that why minor punishment was given and major punishment has not been given. Thereafter, ADGP himself set aside the punishment order of imposition of fine of Rs.500/-. Then, he directed the IG to review the matter under regulation 270. Thus, half of the power to the extent of setting aside the punishment is exercised by the ADGP and then it was remitted for undertaking remaining exercise of review to IG. The IG, in turn, issued a show cause notice for enhancement of punishment and after receiving reply, inflicted a major punishment of stopping of increment with cumulative effect. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the intention of regulation 270 is to give power to one of the higher authorities to exercise the power. It does not contemplate the situation where against one disciplinary proceeding two reviewing authorities will exercise their power simultaneously or jointly. It was open either for ADGP or for IG to invoke and complete the exercise as per regulation 270. In my considered opinion, regulation 270 cannot be read in the manner by which one authority may start action under regulation 270, proceed to some extent and then entrust the work to another authority. Needless to mention that disciplinary proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings and outcome of the said proceedings may be punitive and detrimental to an employee. In such a situation the need of principle of natural justice is to ensure that the said authority works dispassionately without there being any iota of influence or dictate from a higher authority. Needless to mention that disciplinary proceedings are quasi judicial proceedings and outcome of the said proceedings may be punitive and detrimental to an employee. In such a situation the need of principle of natural justice is to ensure that the said authority works dispassionately without there being any iota of influence or dictate from a higher authority. However, in the present case the ADGP with almost a dictate that punishment is minor directed the IG to undertake the review. Although IG issued a notice of proposed enhancement of punishment to petitioner, in my considered opinion the said notice was an empty formality. After having received a dictate from ADGP, it was no more open for the IG to exercise his discretion in maintaining the earlier punishment or to impose any other punishment than what has been desired by ADGP. Even if it is not a dictate, to a great extent it has a severe influence on the IG for the purpose of undertaking review and imposition of proper punishment. In this view of the matter, in my considered opinion, regulation 270 does not prescribe any enabling provision to undertake review in partial manner in the same matter by two different authorities simultaneously. 8. Apart from this, the action cannot be upheld for another reason that the IG was directed to review with a specific finding and question by ADGP as to why leniency was shown and why minor punishment was imposed. In that situation, there was no scope of any independent, dispassionate and discretionary exercise of power by the IG. This was almost a dictate by the higher authority. In such situation, the principle of natural justice and fair play had no role to play and accordingly, this action is totally capricious in nature. 9. For the reasons stated above, I am unable to uphold the action of the respondents. Consequently, the impugned order Annexure P/2 is set aside. However, liberty is reserved to the ADGP/Authority, who has passed Annexure P/1 to complete the exercise under regulation 270. If the said authority deems it fit to continue with the proceedings, he may complete the same within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, failing which any action pursuant to Annexure P/1 shall stand abated. 10. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.