PANDURANG RAO Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court who is working as an Asstt. Sub Inspector of Police, has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the Show Cause Notice dt. 22/9/08, charge sheet dt. 20/3/09 and the order passed by the disciplinary authority dt. 4/12/09.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that a Show Cause Notice was issued by the Department alleging certain misconduct and the disciplinary authority by an order dt. 29/8/07 has inflicted a punishment. A fine of Rs.1000/- was imposed upon the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that thereafter a Show Cause Notice was issued on 22/9/08 by the revising authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 270 of the M.P. Police Regulations and the petitioner immediately protested against the Show Cause Notice issued under Regulation 270 of the M.P. Police Regulations as it was time barred. Petitioner has further stated that a writ petition was preferred by him ie., WP NO. 6926 / 2009 and this court vide order dt. 5/10/09 has directed the Superintendent of Police, to pass an appropriate order in the matter keeping in view the judgment delivered by this court in the case of Sushil Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2007 1 MPLJ 392. The Superintendent of Police, was also directed to take into account the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Angad Singh Rathore (W.A.NO. 123 / 2010, decided on 9/4/2010). Grievance of the petitioner is that his representation has been turned down in a mechanical manner by the Superintendent of Police inspite of the fact that there are two judgments in his favour and the disciplinary authority cannot exercise the power of review or revision after expiry of limitation of 6 months period Learned counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, has argued before this court that the impugned Show Cause Notice dt. 22/9/08 has been issued under the provisions of Regulation 270 of the M.P. Police Regulations and there is no period of limitation prescribed under the M.P. Police Regulations. She has vehemently argued before this court that as it is a case of police personnel the disciplinary action is going on under the provisions of the M.P. Police Regulations and the period of limitation of 6 months is provided for review only under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. It has been further stated that enquiry has also been concluded in the present case and the enquiry officer has submitted his report also and, therefore, at this stage, the question of interference by this court does not arise.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties.