ORDER :

1. Petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 25.10.2019 passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby the authority has set aside the order of punishment of censure imposed upon the petitioner by respondent No. 4 in the month of April 2017 and remitted back the matter to the S.P. Bilaspur to initiate departmental enquiry.

2. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner was posted as Inspector in the Police Department and at the relevant time i.e. in the year 2016 he was posted at Police Station-Sirgitti, Bilaspur. On the basis of written complaint, charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. The departmental enquiry culminated into the order of warning which was entered in the service book and such order was passed in the month of April 2017. After lapse of more than 2½ years, the order passed by respondent No. 4 was suo motu reviewed by respondent No. 3 by exercising the powers conferred under Regulation 270 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations (hereinafter called as “CGPR”) and vide order dated 25.10.2019, the respondent no. 3 set aside the punishment of warning inflicted against the petitioner and remitted back the matter to the Superintendent of Police for enquiry.

3. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that though there is no limitation provided under Regulation 270 of the “CGPR” to review the order passed by the disciplinary authority. He would further submit that where there is no limitation, power should be exercised within a reasonable period. He would also submit that without affording any opportunity of hearing and without issuance of notice the respondent No. 3 has passed the impugned order. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the M.P. High Court in the matter of Angad Singh Rathore vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2009 SCC Online M.P. 379 : (2010) 1 MPLJ 171 where similar issues were involved and same regulations were being dealt with by the High Court.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the State would submit that proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and the notice was issued on 11.04.2019. She would further submit that looking to the proportionality of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner the respondent No. 3 took cognizance and reviewed the order, therefore, there is no illegality in the decision taken by the respondent No. 3. She would also submit that looking to the grievousness of the conduct imputed against the petitioner, the delay caused in taking cognizance by respondent No. 3 can be ignored. She would submit that the petition preferred by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was imposed with punishment of censure in the month of April 2017 by the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur. It is also not disputed that for more than 2½ years, no proceedings were initiated in this regard and surprisingly on 25.10.2019 the respondent No. 3 reviewed the decision arrived at by the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur by setting aside the order and remitting back the matter to the authority to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The order has been passed by the respondent No. 3 after more than 2½ years. In the matter of Angad Singh Rathore (supra) wherein the High Court of M.P. has held that Regulation 270 provides for suo motu revision which reads as under:

270.....(1) Every order of punishment of exoneration, whether original or appellate shall be liable to revision suo motu by any authority superior to the authority making the order.

(2) Every appellate order by a Final Appellate Authority shall be liable to revision by such Final Appellate Authority, on application made in that behalf by the person against whom the order has been passed.

Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, the expression “Final Appellate Authority” means the final authority empowered to hear an appe