The State of M.P. vs Prahlad Singh

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for condonation of delay I.A.No.8111/2011.

Keeping in view the reasons indicated in the application, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned.

Learned counsel for the parties are also heard on the question of admission.

Respondent was working in the Police Department. A departmental enquiry was conducted against him and vide order dated 31.7.1998, a penalty of reduction to the minimum pay scale on the post of Constable for a period of six months with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. However, after this punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority, it seems that the Director General of Police exercised his powers of suo motu revision as available under the provisions of Police Regulation 270 (4) and quashed the order of punishment and, thereafter, issued a show cause notice to the employee concerned asking him to show cause as to why, he should not be dismissed from service.

Challenging this action, a writ petition was filed and the Writ Court after placing reliance on a judgment in the case of Vikram Singh Rana Vs. State of M.P. and others, , came to the conclusion that without opportunity of hearing, the suo motu powers exercised by the Director General of Police and interfering with the original order of punishment was not called for.

Challenging this order passed by the Writ Court, this writ appeal has been filed by the State.

Having heard Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General and Shri Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent, we are of the considered view that in interfering into the matter, the Writ Court has not committed any error. When the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment on 31.7.1998 and when the employee did not challenge the same and accepted the punishment, if the Director General of Police wanted to interfere with the punishment, he should have issued notice to the employee concerned, hear him and, thereafter, interfere with the order of punishment. This was the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice. This was not done, instead, behind the back of the employee concerned, the entire punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority on 31.7.1998 was set-aside and, thereafter, a new proposal for punishment was imposed. This could not be done. Before setting aside the original punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and before exercising the powers of suo motu revision, as the order proposed to be passed by the Director General of Police is to effect adverse consequence of the employee i.e. interfering with the punishment issued by the disciplinary authority, the Director General of Police should have issued notice to the employee, hear him and, thereafter, interfere with the original order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority, this having not been done, the learned Writ Court has not committed any error in placing reliance on the judgment laid down in the case of Vikram Singh Rana (supra), which only provides that as a Higher authority proposes to interfere with the original order of the disciplinary authority, it should first issue notice to the delinquent and hear him and thereafter take action.

Accordingly, finding no error in the order passed by the Writ Court warranting consideration, the appeal is dismissed.