ORDER

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order date 28.07.2017 passed by respondent No.3 i.e. Inspector General of Police, Chambal Zone, Morena, whereby while exercising suo moto revisional powers as provided under Police Regulations 270(4) the earlier penalty imposed upon the petitioner of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect for one year has been set aside and the matter has been remitted back for fresh departmental inquiry to be conducted against the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that on the basis of a complaint made by one Satish Kumar Sharma against the petitioner, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by CSP, Morena and in the preliminary inquiry it was opined that without receiving the expert's report with respect to the recording submitted by the complainant, the petitioner cannot be held guilty. It was further submitted that again the same officer in the said preliminary enquiry further opined the voice recorded by the complainant is that of the petitioner and prepared a report and sent it to the disciplinary authority and on the basis of the said report, preliminary departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. On the basis of said preliminary enquiry the disciplinary authority found the petitioner guilty and imposed a minor penalty of withholding one increment with non-cumulative effect for one year vide order dated 22.03.2016.

3. It was further contended that though the petitioner did not challenged the said minor penalty imposed upon him but after lapse of one year the higher authority i.e. respondent No.3 taking the matter in suo moto revision set aside the said penalty order and remitted the matter back for conducting a fresh departmental enquiry holding that act of the petitioner is of grievous nature and the minor penalty imposed upon the petitioner is on lesser side.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while taking resort of Rule 29 of MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 had argued that the period of limitation for exercising the suo moto revisional powers can at the most be six months from the date of passing of the order but admittedly herein case the suo moto revisional powers have been exercised after a period of one year, which was beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, the said order is per se illegal.

5. To bolster his submissions he has placed reliance in the matter of Union Of India & Ors vs Vikrambhai Maganbhai Chaudhari reported in (2011) 7 SCC 321 and in the matter of Angad Singh Rathor Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2010 (1) MPLJ 171 and had contended that when the police regulations with regard to limitation of exercising the suo moto revisional powers are silent then resort can be taken that of the MPCCA Rules (Rule III), wherein the maximum period for review is provided as six months.

6. It has further been submitted that the revisional authority while exercising the powers under the Regulation 270(4) of Police Regulations had not considered the fact that at the time of passing of the order the petitioner had already suffered the penalty which was imposed against him. Thus, when a penalty which has already been suffered by the petitioner, there was no reason in setting aside the said penalty order and remitting the matter back to the disciplinary authority for conducting a fresh enquiry. On the basis of aforesaid arguments, it was submitted that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the order impugned Annexure P/1 deserves to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the contention of the petitioner that the limitation as provided under the MPCCA Rules of 1966 can be taken resort to, is wholly misconceived, as the division bench of this Court in the matter of State of M.P. an others Vs. Satyendra Singh Bhadoriya passed in writ appeal No.227/2017 dated 03.08.2017 reported in 2018 (1)