Review procedures initiated within six months can extend beyond that period due to necessary legal processes, ensuring fairness and justice.

JUDGMENT :

Anand Pathak, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) being crestfallen by the order dated 15-05-2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17702 of 2017 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that on the basis of a complaint in relation to demanding bribe on phone call, a preliminary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by CSP, Morena in which vide enquiry report dated 13-08-2015, it was held that opinion can only be given after receiving the advice from the voice expert. Thereafter, again the said officer submitted its report dated 13-11-2015 finding the petitioner guilty. On the basis of said enquiry report, the disciplinary authority (Superintendent of Police, Morena) punished the petitioner with stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. Thereafter, matter was taken under suo motu revision by the Inspector General of Police, Chambal Zone, Morena by issuing show cause notice dated 07-06-2016. Petitioner replied the said notice but the appellate authority, set aside the punishment order of petitioner and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority for initiating a fresh enquiry against the petitioner in writ appeal.

3. The order of suo motu revision passed by the appellate authority was called in question by the petitioner by filing writ petition but the said writ petition was dismissed by learned Writ Court, therefore, petitioner is before this Court in writ appeal.

4. The foremost and the core point of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case of petitioner has been concluded under suo motu revision by the appellate authority beyond the prescribed period of limitation of six months. It is further submitted that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner has lost its currency as it has already been suffered by the petitioner, therefore, the order impugned passed by the appellate authority under suo motu revision was not sustainable. Since M.P. Police Regulations do not prescribe any limitation for taking the order under suo motu revision, therefore, rule 29 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the CCA Rules”) will be applicable and according to that rule, the order under suo motu revision can be passed within six months from the date of order of penalty. Reliance has been placed over the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Vikrambhai Maganbhai Chaudhari , (2011) 7 SCC 321 and the judgments of Single Bench of this Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and others , 2007 (1) MPLJ 392 and Angad Singh Rathore Vs. Stat of M.P. and others, 2010 (1) MPLJ 171.

5. It is further submitted that learned Writ Court did not consider the controversy in correct perspective and dismiss the writ petition preferred by the petitioner. Thus, prayed for setting aside the orders impugned.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/ State opposed the prayer and supported the order passed by learned Writ Court. It is submitted that the provisions of CCA Rules are inapplicable to the non-ministerial post in the Police Department and the limitation prescribed for taking the matter under suo motu revision is six months and it was not the limitation prescribed for conclusion of suo motu proceedings. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the present writ appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the