VAIBHAV POOREY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of parties, finally heard.

(2.) The challenge is mounted in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to certain orders mentioned in the relief clause but Shri Ishteyaq Husain, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments against the orders passed in review dtd. 27/2/2012 (Annexure P-2) and orders affirming it dtd. 6/11/2012 (Annexure P-3) and 17/1/2017 (Annexure P-4). Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed it on twin grounds. Firstly, the petitioner was inflicted with a minor punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year without cumulative effect with effect from 30/11/2011 but after putting him to notice, the said punishment was converted into said punishment with cumulative effect. No reasons as required under Regulation 270(4) of M.P. Police Regulations are assigned. Secondly, by order dtd. 30/11/2011 a minor punishment was imposed whereas the punishment enhanced / converted by order dtd. 27/2/2012 is a major punishment. In a minor penalty proceedings, a major punishment cannot be imposed. By placing reliance on M.M. Mudgal v. State of M.P., 2012 SCC OnLine MP 6899, it is urged that for these reasons impugned order of renew may be set aside.

(3.) Shri Devdutt Bhave, learned P.L. for the State supported the impugned order.