(1.) 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. Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on 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.
(2.) 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.
(3.) I have heard the parties and perused the record.