( 1. ) PETITIONER is working on the post of Inspector in the home (Police Department) of the State Government.

( 2. ) A notice dt. 15. 05. 06 (Annexure A/2) was issued to the petitioner by the third respondent Inspector General of Police, Ujjain to show cause as to why departmental proceedings be not initiated against him for the misconduct alleged in the said notice. The petitioner submitted reply (Annexure A/3) on 25. 05. 06 to the said show cause notice and denied the charges levelled against him. However instead of taking any- decision on the basis of the said reply, the third respondent inspector General of Police, Ujjain Zone issued him yet another show cause notice dt. 14. 06. 06 (Annexure A/4) on the same facts. On receipt of the said show cause notice, having regard to the punishment proposed in the said notice which was not very severe the petitioner thought it proper to. accept the punishment proposed in the said notice. He therefore submitted his reply dt. 24. 06. 06 (Annexure P/5) and requested for lenient punishment. On receipt of the petitioners reply dt. 24. 06. 06 (Annexure A/5) the third respondent considered the same and having regard to the nature of misconduct, the entire facts and circumstances of the alleged incident, took a lenient view and instead of the proposed punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect inflicted upon the petitioner punishment of penalty of Rs. 1000/-vide order dt. 15. 07. 06 (Annexure A/6 ).

( 3. ) AFTER more than eight months of passing of the aforesaid punishment order dt. 15. 07. 06 (Annexure A/6) the second respondent Director General of Police which is also an appellate authority against the impugned order passed by the third respondent issued a notice dt. 24. 03. 07 (Annexure A/1) to the petitioner exercising its suo-motu revisional powers provided under regulation 270 (iv) of the m. P. Police Regulations (for short Regulations) calling upon him to show cause as to why the order dt. 15. 07. 06 passed by the third respondent Inspector General of police, Ujjain Zone be not reviewed and departmental inquiry be not initiated against him having regard to the gravity of the misconduct.

( 4. ) ON receipt of the aforesaid show cause notice dt. 24. 03. 07 (Annexure A/ 1)to take the matter in suo-motu revision, the petitioner submitted reply (Annexure a/7) to it challenging the jurisdiction of the second respondent to issue the show cause notice after expiry of six months from the passing of the order of penalty (Annexure P/6 ). He also prayed for dropping of the proposed action against him. The second respondent vide order dt. 23. 07. 07 rejected the petitioners objection about limitation, cancelled the penalty order dt. 15. 07. 06 (Annexure P/6) passed by the third respondent and ordered to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition.

( 5. ) SHRI Sachin Bhatnagar learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order of exercising the suo-motu revisional power under Regulation 270 (4) of the Regulations by the second respondent who is an appellate authority against the order of penalty passed by the third respondent beyond the period of six months is impermissible. He submits that when the police regulations are silent about the limitation for exercising suo-motu revisional powers the provisions of m. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short the Rules) will be applicable. He placing reliance on Rule 29 of (iii) the Rules argued that the second respondent being an appellate authority the order of penalty could have been reviewed by him, within six months of the date of the said order of penalty. He submitted that in view of regulation 262 of the Regulations against-the order of penalty dt. 15. 07. 06 (Annexure A/6) passed by the third respondent inspector General of Police, Ujjain Zone the second respondent Director General of Police woul