TEJNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is working as Assistant Sub Inspector in the Police Department, State of Chhattisgarh, has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 11-1-2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 2 herein suo motu exercising revisional power as per Regulation 270 of Chhattisgarh Police Regulation and thus revising the order dated 20-11-2009 imposing the penalty of reduction in rank from Sub Inspector to Assistant Sub Inspector for one year. This is a classic case in which revising authority-the respondent No. 2 while exercising suo moto revisional power under clause 270 (1) of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulation enhanced the penalty awarded to the petitioner during the pendency of statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner under clause 263 of the Regulation without awaiting the decision of the appeal and that too in flagrant violation of clause 4 of Regulation 270 of the Regulation and in complete breach of principles of natural justice. Facts of the case in brief are that at the relevant time the petitioner was working as Sub Inspector in the Police Department, State of Chhattisgarh, and was posted in police station Patna, Baikunthpur, District Korea. Allegation against him was that on 28-1-2007 one Gulab Singh had gone to the said police station to lodge the FIR as his son Surendra Singh was brutally beaten by Poonam Singh, Kalyan Singh and others but the petitioner did not register the same promptly. On receiving the complaint on 28-4-2007 (Annexure P-2) a show cause notice was given to the petitioner which was duly replied to by him on 6-7-2007 (Annexure P-3) denying the allegations made against him. However, being dissatisfied with the reply, charge sheet (Annexure P-4) was given to him. Reply to the charge-sheet was submitted on 26-5-2009 (Annexure P-5). Enquiry Officer was appointed on 12-6-2009 vide Annexure P-6 who submitted the enquiry report (Annexure P-7). On 20-11-2009 vide Annexure P-8 the petitioner was imposed penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Before the petitioner could question the penalty imposed on him by way of appeal, by letter No. Kra/Mni/Sir/Vari. Steno/1313/09 dated 14-12-2009 the order of penalty passed by the Superintendent of Police dated 20-11-2009 was set aside by the Inspector General of Police, respondent No. 2 herein, holding the punishment so imposed to be inadequate. On the same day i.e. 14-12-2009 a show cause notice (Annexure P-10) was issued by respondent No. 2 itself stating therein that as the penalty imposed by the Superintendent of Police appeared to be inadequate, the petitioner should submit his reply within 5 days as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. Reply to this show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner on 25-12-2009 vide Annexure P-11 and thereafter the impugned order has been passed.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned (Annexure P-1) is purported to have been passed in appeal filed by the petitioner whereas in fact the said order has been passed by respondent No. 2-Inspector General of Police suo motu exercising the revisional powers. He submits that the order impugned is contrary to the provisions of Regulation 270 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations and the Inspector General of Police could not have reversed the order of the Superintendent of Police without giving him prior opportunity of hearing. He submits that on 14-12-2009 itself vide letter No. Kra/Mni/Sir/Vari/Steno/1314/09 a show cause notice was given to the petitioner. He submits that the second letter issued on 14-12-2009 (Annexure P-10) is nothing but an empty formality because before issuing the same a decision was already taken by the Inspector General of Police (Respondent No. 2 herein) to set aside the order of the Superintendent of Police which is contrary to the Chhattisgarh Police Regulation. He submits that the order impugned has been passed by respondent No. 2 without application of mind and the same is not a speaking one. He submits that the order impugned has been passed without even waiting for the period of limitation prescribed for presentation of appeal as per Regulation 263 of Chhattisgarh Police Regulation. He submits that penalty was imposed by the Superintendent of Police on 20-11-2009, petitioner preferred an appeal on 15-12-2009 and before the appeal could be heard by the Inspector General of Police, appellate authority itself has set aside the order of the Superintendent of Police vide order dated 14-12-2009 holding the same as inadequate and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for enhancing the same. He submits that not only the mandatory provisions of law have been violated by the respondents but the right of the petitioner to prefer the appeal has also been taken away. He submits that as per Regulation 213 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulation, the provision of Chhattisgarh Classification (Appeal and Revision) Rules are also applicable particularly when the police Regulation is silent with respect to the procedural law in the departmental enquiry and in view of the provisions of Rule 29 (2) of the Chhattisgarh Classification (Appeal and Revision) Rules, no review proceedings shall be commenced until after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for appeal or disposal of appeal where any such appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Supporting the order impugned it has been argued by the counsel for the respondents that as the Inspector General of Police found the penalty imposed on the petitioner to be inadequate, he is wholly justified in enhancing the same. He submits that present is not a case where no notice was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. He submits that the petitioner was given due notice on 14-12-2009 which was even replied to by him and thus he cannot say that principle of natural justice has not been complied with in the case. He however very fairly admits that on 14-12-2009 vide letter No. Kra/Mni/ Sir/Vari. Steno/1313/09 the order of Superintendent of Police dated 20-11-2009 was set aside.