The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Rules to Class III (Non-Ministerial) posts in the Police Department governed by the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, and the validity of the exercise of revisional power under Police Regulation 270.

Sanjay Yadav, J.-

1. Punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect inflicted by order dated 13-7-2010 passed by Deputy Inspector General, Rewa Range, Rewa, in exercise of his suo motu revisional power under Police Regulation 270 is being questioned in the petition.

2. Petitioner, a Sub Inspector, in the Police Department, in respect of the dereliction of his duty while posted as Incharge Police Station Baheri District Sidhi was charge sheeted on 4-12-2008.

Following charges were levelled against him: -

3. Denial of charges by the petitioner led to initiation of regular Departmental Enquiry which culminated into recording of finding of no guilt by the Enquiry Officer who submitted the enquiry report on 18-6-2009. The Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Superintendent of Police exonerated the petitioner of the charges by order dated 23-6-2009.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner was visited with an order on 15-3-2010 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police whereby, the order dated 23-6-2009 was set aside and the matter was taken up in suo motu revision.

5. In a challenge in W.P. No. 4291/2010 (s) wherein on an undertaking given by learned Govt. Advocate that the order dated 15-3-2010 was passed under misconception and hence withdrawn, following order .was passed on 26-4-2010: -

“In view of the aforesaid statement made by the learned Counsel appearing for the State/respondents and by recording the aforesaid statement the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty of the petitioner to file a reply to the undated notice a copy of which had been filed by the petitioner along with the petition as Annexure P-8 arid thereafter the authority 'shall proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with Regulation 270 of the Police Regulation. The petition is accordingly disposed of in term of the aforesaid directions and the statement made by the respondents.”

6. Simultaneously, the petitioner was subjected to a show-cause notice in March, 2010 issued by the Dy. Inspector General of Police in purported exercise of powers under Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations 270. Petitioner replied to the same that the suo motu revision is not maintainable as the same has been taken up after expiry of six months from the date of order to be reviewed. The petitioner however was inflicted with the impugned punishment and is before this Court vide this writ petition.

7. Petitioner questions the order on three grounds that:- (i) it is beyond the power of the Revisional Authority to cause suo motu revision beyond the period of 6 months from the date of order, under review, (ii) that the show-cause notice being cryptic the edifice in the shape of revisional order thereon is vitiated, and (iii) that the suo motu revision since emanates at the instance of the Inspector General of Police, there is no application of independent mind by the Dy. Inspector General of Police and, therefore, the impugned order suffers from the vice of perversity.

8. In order to propitiate the submissions, learned Counsel, in respect of first proposition has placed reliance on the provisions contained under Rule 29 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which as per the petitioner is applicable and provides for that the suo motu revision can be entertained within six months from the date of order to be reviewed. Reliance is also placed on the decision by Bench of this Court in Sushil Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2007 (1) MPLJ 392.

9. The said decision though proceed on a principle regarding applicability of the provision of Rules of 1996 in respect of Sub-ordinate Police Officials who are governed by the Police Regulation. However, it appears that the exclusion of applicability of Rules, 1966 was not noted in this case. The exclusion clause appear in the Schedule appended with the Rules of 1966, wherein it is clearly stated that:-

“Class III (Non-Ministerial) posts in the Police Department