ORDER

With consent heard finally.

1. The present petition is preferred by petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking following reliefs :--

“(i) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Writ petition;

(ii) That, the charge-sheet Annexure P/1 dated 1.11.2000 issued by the respondent No.3 to the petitioner may kindly be directed to be quashed.

(iii) That, the order of punishment dated 22.1.2002 Annexure P/2 issued by the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to be quashed.

(iv) That, the order Annexure P/3 dated 22.8.2007 issued by the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to be quashed.

(v) That, the order dated 7.8.2002 Annexure P/4 may kindly be directed to be quashed.

(vi) That, the order dated 9.12.2010 Annexure P/5 passed by Inspector General of Police, Chambal Zone, Gwalior may kindly be directed to be quashed.

(vii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable on 18.3.1992 and he was performing his duties at the relevant point of time as Police Constable. On 8.6.2000, the petitioner was posted at Police Station Seondha, District Datia and he faced the allegations that one Manoj Kumar Dubey after attending his date in the trial Court when passed nearby the Police Station Seondha around 4:00 PM then at the instance of Sub Inspector Anar Singh Sikarwar, A.S.I. B.N. Chaturvedi, petitioner caught hold of him and abused him and caused marpeet. They took him to the Police Station Seondha and confined him in custody till 10.6.2000 without any reason and thereafter released him.

3. On the complaint made against the petitioner and other persons, investigation carried out and enquiry was made by the Superintendent of Police, Datia and charge sheet was issued by him vide charge sheet dated 1.11.2000.

4. The departmental enquiry was conducted by Additional SP Datia Shri Rajendra Prasad and allegations were found proved. Therefore, petitioner was inflicted with punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year with cumulative effect vide order dated 22.1.2002.

5. It appears that an appeal was preferred by petitioner before the Inspector General of Police, Chambal Zone, Gwalior. Appellate authority considered the appeal and rejected the same vide order dated 7.8.2002. Thereafter, after more than five years of appellate order, an amended order has been passed by SP Datia on 22.8.2007 (Annexure P/3) and deleted the word “one year” from the punishment order. It means the stoppage of one increment was inflicted with cumulative effect and punishment was not confined to one year only. It had ever lasting effect impliedly.

6. It appears that when petitioner suffered before the appellate authority vide order dated 22.1.2002 preferred a mercy petition before the IGP Chambal Zone, Gwalior, then said mercy petition/revision got dismissed. Therefore, this petition has been preferred.

7. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that authorities did not consider the case in correct perspective and passed illegal and arbitrary orders. According to him, order dated 22.8.2007 passed by SP Datia (respondent No.3 herein) is clear violation of Regulation 270 (4) of Police Regulations, where it has been held that the revising authority may reasons to be recorded in writing exonerate or may remit, vary or enhance the punishment imposed over the delinquent, provided a notice has been served and opportunity is given for being heard. Here, no such opportunity was given.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner further refers the fact that in departmental enquiry no presenting officer was appointed and enquiry officer acted as Presenting Officer. Therefore, enquiry officer vitiated the enquiry. He also referred the Police Regulation 226 to submit that penalty appe