NIKHIL MATABBAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, being aggrieved by a notice issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Railways, West Bengal on 17th June, 2011 calling upon him to show cause why a harsher punishment should not be imposed on him, challenged the same before the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 721 of 2011. The Original Application, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed. The petitioner was charge sheeted for certain acts of misconduct for which the Disciplinary Authority passed an order imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect on 5th April, 2011. He preferred an Appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Railways, West Bengal, who is the Appellate Authority. This Appeal was preferred on 14th April, 2011. The Appellate Authority on 17th June, 2011 issued the aforesaid show-cause notice calling upon him to show cause why the punishment should not be enhanced.

(2.) The Tribunal has found that considering Regulations 882, 883 and 884 of the Police Regulations of Bengal, 1943 (hereinafter referred to as the P.R.B.) the Appellate Authority had the power to enhance the punishment by issuing a show-cause notice. Taking exception to this decision of the Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court by preferring the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr. Roy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that by issuing a notice under Regulation 884 of the P.R.B., the petitioner has been deprived of his right to move the revisional authority in the event the order of the Appellate Authority is passed against him. According to the learned Counsel, such a power of revision ought to be exercised only after the Appellate Authority decides whether in an Appeal the Disciplinary Authority's order should be substituted. He submits that since the petitioner was in carriage of proceedings, the Revisional Authority could not have passed any order issuing the notice for enhancement of the punishment as he could have withdrawn the Appeal and then the notice would automatically become infructuous. Mr. Roy has also submitted that in view of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Basudeb Pal Chowdhury vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police & Ors.,1981 2 CalLJ 156, the power of revision can be exercised only after the period of Appeal is completed. Mr. Roy submits that the Deputy Inspector General of Police (hereinafter referred to as D.I.G.) cannot suo motu exercise the power of revision while the appeal is pending. He also places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. J. Krishnamurthy, 1997 11 SCC 467 and in the case of M.D. Maharashtra Cotton Growers Market Federation Ltd. vs. Choughule Popatrao Annasaheb and Another, 2003 6 SCC 247.