Pramod Kumar Dixit vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1809 MP

                                                 1
                 IN         THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                          AT GWALIOR
                                              BEFORE
                             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
                                                 &
                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                      ON THE 1 st OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                       WRIT APPEAL No. 118 of 2023

               BETWEEN:-
               PRAMOD KUMAR DIXIT S/O SHRI SANTRAM DIXIT,
               AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O 231, ADARSH NAGAR
               COLONY, MORAR RAOD, GOLE KA MANDIR, GWALIOR
               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                         .....APPELLANT
               (BY SHRI SIDDHARTH SHARMA- ADVOCATE )

               AND
               1.          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                           PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
                           VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

               2.          DIRECTOR   GENERAL  OF   POLICE, POLICE
                           HEAD QUARTER S JAHANGRIRABAD, BHOPAL
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

               3.          ADGP/INSPECTOR   GENERAL   OF   POLICE,
                           GWALIOR    REGION,  GWALIOR   (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

               4.          SUPERINTENDENT   OF    POLICE   , GWALIOR
                           (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
               (BY SHRI ANKUR MODY- ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE
               STATE )

                           T h i s appeal coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE ATUL
Signature Not Verified
               SREEDHARAN passed the following:
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 02-02-2023
10:16:09 AM
                                                  ORDER

The present writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein against the order dated 19.9.2022 passed in W.P.No.19873/2022, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant herein for quashing an order dated 28.6.2022 passed by respondent No.3 invoking the revisional powers under Police Regulation 270 was dismissed.

The learned Single Judge after considering the averments in the petition and the arguments of both the sides, dismissed the writ petition as it did not find any illegality in the impugned order.

Learned counsel for the appellant referred to page 12 Annexure P/1 in the writ petition which is the impugned order. Having gone through the same, we

find that the order is elaborate. However, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the last paragraph in internal page 2 of the said order, which, according to him, does not give sufficient reasons by the Revisional Authority which has decided against him only on the basis of his reply, rather than on the material available against him. Upon examination of the said paragraph, this Court finds that the submission made by the appellant is factually incorrect as the Revisional Authority has stated categorically that he has gone through the record of the case and also examined the reply given by the appellant herein.

Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to Regulation 270 of the Police Regulation with specific reference to clause 4 which provides that the revising authority may for reason to be recorded in writing exonerate or may remit vary or enhance the punishment imposed or may order a fresh enquiry of taking of further evidence in the case. The impugned order has asked for a de novo enquiry against the appellant herein which, according to the learned Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD counsel for the appellant, is not permissible under the law. In order to support Signing time: 02-02-2023 10:16:09 AM his submission, he has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of

Chhattisgarh in Ram Sagar Sinha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (W.P.No.2729/2002) of which a particular portion has been extracted, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to paragraph No.18 of the said judgment where the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh has held that Regulation 270(1) provides for suo motu revision only in case of exoneration from punishment. In other cases, the revision is maintainable only on the application made in that behalf by the person against whom the order has been passed. However, on going through the Police Regulation 270, as applicable in the State, with specific reference to clause 4, with the utmost deference to Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, it appears that clause 4 of Regulation 270 is worded in such a manner that is wide enough that a fresh enuiry may also be ordered by the revising authority if to the subjective satisfaction based upon record of the case it is to be so done.

Under the circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal is dismissed.

                  (ATUL SREEDHARAN)                                (DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
                         JUDGE                                              JUDGE
               ms/-




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 02-02-2023
10:16:09 AM