JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner is a Sub Inspector in Uttarakhand Civil Police. He is aggrieved by the order dated 1st March, 2012 and 30th August, 2013, passed by the Inspector General of Police, Kumaun Range, Nainital and the Additional Director General of Police (Administration) Uttarakhand respectively by which an order has been passed by the Inspector General of Police for recording “Censure Entry” in the character roll of the petitioner which has been upheld in appeal by the Additional Director General of Police. 2. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was posted as Station Officer in Police Station – Kathgodam, District Nainital an incident was reported to him on 19th February, 2008 that a woman was found hanging on a tree. The father of the victim brought it to the notice of the petitioner that he suspects that his daughter has been killed under suspicious circumstances, etc. The petitioner firstly did not lodge the first information report immediately as according to him the matter was related to Patwari Circle and the investigation was liable to be conducted in the matter by the Revenue Police. Moreover, on 18th February, 2008 a complaint was lodged at Police Station – Haldwani by the father of the deceased regarding missing and petitioner again took an excuse that the matter was liable to be investigated by another police station. 3. Nevertheless, since the Patwaris were not working and were on strike, the petitioner was directed by the superior authorities to lodge the First Information Report which he reluctantly lodged on 15th April, 2008 and in stead of conducting the investigation himself he referred the matter to the Revenue authorities and the matter was ultimately investigated by the CBCID. Meanwhile the petitioner was given a show cause by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital asking the petitioner as to why he did not register the First Information Report immediately and, consequently, petitioner gave a reply that the area was not within his jurisdiction and ultimately reply of the petitioner was accepted by the Senior Superintendent of Police and disciplinary proceedings were dropped against the petitioner vide order dated 26.05.2010. 4. 4. After almost two years, a show cause notice was issued by the appellate authority i.e. Inspector General of Police, Kumaun Region, Nainital on 07.01.2012 by which the appellate authority exercising his powers cancelled the final order dated 26.05.2010 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital and gave a further show cause notice to the petitioner as to why “Censure entry” be not entered in the character roll of the petitioner for dereliction of duties and for not lodging the First Information Report immediately. 5. Petitioner again submitted his reply to the said show cause notice but the reply was not found satisfactory and the punishment was imposed upon the petitioner on 1st March, 2012 by which a punishment of “Censure Entry” has been imposed. 6. Petitioner moved an appeal before the Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Uttarakhand and both the appellate as well as revisional authority held that it was the duty of the petitioner to have registered an First Information Report which the petitioner did not do that instead he was cutting corners in the matter, by taking a plea that the matter was related to Patwari Circle, etc. Since it is a finding that petitioner should have lodged the First Information Report immediately upon receiving the information of a cognizable offence and thereafter he would have done the needful thereafter, this, the petitioner was liable to do and it was the duty of the petitioner, this the petitioner did not do. 7. The petitioner, however, has brought to the notice of the Court that it is an admitted fact that vide order dated 26th May, 2010, the proceedings were dropped against the petitioner by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital. If the Inspector General of Police had any reason to set aside the order of Senior Superintendent of Police under the powers conferred under Section 23 of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, he should have first given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Rule 23 of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 reads as under:- “23. Rule 23 of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 reads as under:- “23. Revision.- (1) An officer whose appeal has been rejected by any authority subordinate to the Government is entitled to submit an application for revision to the authority next in rank above by which his appeal has been rejected within the period of three months from the date of rejection of appeal. On such an application the powers of revision may be exercised only when, in consequent of flagrant irregularity, there appears to have been material injustice or miscarriage of justice: Provided that the revising authority may on its own motion call for and examine the records of any order passed in appeal against which no revision has been preferred under this rule for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such procedure and pass such order with respect thereto as it may think fit: Provided further that no order under the first proviso shall be made except after giving the person effected a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. (2) The procedure prescribed for appeal applies also to application for revision. An application for revision of an order rejecting an appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the original order as well as the order of appellate authority.” 8. Under the first proviso to the aforesaid rules, the Inspector General of Police has suo moto powers, but such powers are to be exercised after due notice or opportunity of being heard in the matter to the person concerned as per the second proviso. This has not been done. In such circumstances, the show cause notice dated 7th January, 2012 issued by the Inspector General of Police, Kumaun Range, Nainital has been issued without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, hence it is in violation of second proviso to Rule 23 of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Hence, the notice dated 7th January, 2012 cannot be sustained. 9. The writ petition is allowed. Order dated 01.03.2012 and order dated 30.08.2013 are hereby quashed. 10. No order as to costs.