1. The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the department of police was proceeded against in a disciplinary proceedings and after completion of the enquiry, he was visited with the punishment of placement in the minimum of pay scale for a period of two years and further was also given warning to improve his attitude failing which no sympathy would be shown in the future.

2. Grieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under paragraph 262 of the Police Regulations. Thereafter, a show cause notice under paragraph 270 (4) of the aforesaid Regulations was issued to him for retiring him compulsorily. He submitted the reply to the show cause and eventually by order dated 29.8.2005, Annexure P-8, he was visited with the punishment of compulsory retirement. The petitioner intended to prefer an appeal to the State Government but a clarification was issued that no appeal did lie against said order. It is contended that the respondent No.2, Director General of Police, could not have exercised the power of review after lapse of two years, inasmuch as the order of punishment was passed on 29.4.2003. It is further put forth that the respondent No.2 had not assigned any reason to disagree with the findings given by the respondent No.2, Inspector General of Police and hence, on both the counts the order is sensitively susceptible.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed contending, inter alia, that the petitioner had not properly carried investigation in certain criminal cases and therefore a charge sheet was served on him. It is set forth that the petitioner was afforded due opportunity and there is no provision of limitation which curtails the powers of the Director General of Police to exercise the power of revision.

4. I have heard Mr. Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jaideep Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

5. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after a period of two years, the power could not have been exercised and further the order is sans, reason, therefore, assailed the order.

6. Mr. Jaideep Singh, learned counsel for the State supported the order.

7. To view the rivalised submissions raised at the bar, it is appropriate to refer to 270 (4) of the Police Regulations:

"The revision authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing exonerate or may remit, vary or enhance the punishment imposed or may order a fresh enquiry or the taking of further evidence in the case:

Provided that it shall not vary or reverse any order unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them for being heard".

8. In this context, on a scanning of the anatomy of the aforesaid provisions, it is perceptible that no time limit is provided, but a significant one, in the absence of any provisions in the Police Regulations, the provision contained in M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 get attracted. In this context, I may refer with profit to the decision rendered in the case of Krishnanarayan Shivpyare Dixit v. State of M.P. and others [1985 JLJ 659 = 1985 MPLJ 343], wherein the Single Judge has held as under:

15. Learned counsel for the respondents replying to the contention regarding the infraction of the Control and Appeal Rules contends that a perusal of sections 1 to 4 Chapter I of Part II of the Police Regulations which according to the prefatory note at page 11, consist of rules and executive orders by the Government and the executive orders and rules of the Inspector General of Police shows that the following four classes of police personnel are involved in the administration: (i) Gazetted staff-Indian Police Service; (ii) Gazetted staff-State; (iii) Subordinate staff Officers; and (iv) Subordinate staff-rank and file and in this context it has to be held that the expression 'State Police Service' occurring in Regulation 213 of the Police Regulations refers only to the gazetted staff-State and not to