Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunil Dhaman vs Home Department on 19 February, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4428
1 WA-402-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
ON THE 19th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 402 of 2023
SUNIL DHAMAN
Versus
HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Arihant
Kumar Nahar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Kushal Goyal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present Intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant under
Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth
Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 14.02.2023 passed by
learned Single Judge in W.P. No.6529/2015 whereby the writ petition filed
by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case are succinctly stated that by order dated
30.06.1998 the petitioner was appointed as a Constable, in the year 2004 he
was promoted to the post of Head Constable. In the year 2011, he was
further promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. On 06.04.2011, he
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4428
2 WA-402-2023
was posted at police station - Manasa at that time, a complaint was made to
the Superintendent of Police, Neemuch that the petitioner has illegally taken
Rs.21,00,000/- from the house of the complainant. In regard to the
investigation being made, Crime No.35/2012 was registered at police station
- Manasa for the offence under Section 8/18 of N.D.P.S. Act. The
Superintendent of Police, Neemuch issued charge-sheet on 20.09.2014 to the
petitioner along with R.C. Sawaliya, Sub-Inspector and a joint departmental
enquiry was conducted and the Superintendent of Police, Neemuch punished
the petitioner with reduction of one year salary amounting to one increment
with cumulative effect. The petitioner did not challenge the punishment. The
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ratlam issued show-cause notice to the
petitioner as well as to R.C.Sawaliya as less punishment was imposed as
compared to seriousness of the offence. The petitioner submitted a detailed
reply on 06.03.2015 and by order dated 30.03.2015, DIG imposed
punishment of compulsory retirement to R.C. Sawaliya and a penalty of
dismissal to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of
punishment, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal and the said
appeal has also been dismissed by the order dated 31.08.2015 which has
been challenged by the petitioner by way of amendment in the writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Additional Director
General of Police (Vigilance) examined the matter and directed the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Ratlam to initiate the review proceedings under
Regulation 270 of M.P. Police Regulations. After the aforesaid letter, a
show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter, Deputy
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4428
3 WA-402-2023
Inspector General of Police reviewed the order of punishment and passed the
order of dismissal on 30.03.2015. It is argued that the revisional authority
should not have acted on the letter of the Additional Director General of
Police (Vigilance). He has relied upon the judgment passed by the coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Pal Singh v/s State of Madhya
Pradesh and others, 2012 (4) MPLJ, 415. The aforesaid submissions were
recorded by the Writ Court on 04.12.2021 and counsel for the State was
granted time to examine the issue and to address on the same.
4. We find that the learned Single Judge while passing the final order
considered the aforesaid contention in paras 6 and 7, which are reproduced
as under:-
[6]. The petitioner has assailed the impugned punishment given
by the revisional authority only on the ground that the revisional
authority exercised the revisional power only on the direction
issued by the Additional DGP Vigilance, Police Headquarters
which is not the intention of Regulation 270 of M.P. Police
Regulation. If the higher officer was not satisfied with the
punishment then he can revise the punishment in the exercise of
power under Regulation 270 of M.P. Police Regulation but not at
the behest of the higher officer. It is further submitted by Shri
Nahar learned counsel that from the language of Section 270 of
M.P. Police Regulation, it can be construed that the power of
review can be exercised suo-motu by the authority who is
competent to decide the appeal against the original order or
appellate order but in this case, the DIG has not passed the order
in suo-motu exercise of power to review, in fact, the DIG Ratlam
initiated the proceedings in pursuant to the dictate of respondent
Additional DGP, Vigilance and IG Ujjain.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4428
4 WA-402-2023
[7] It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the
Additional DGP of Vigilance is not an appellate authority and is
not a superior authority in terms of paragraph No.270 of M.P.
Police Regulation hence impugned action taken at his behest is
per se illegal . In support of his contention, learned counsel for
the petitioner has placed reliance on following judgments: [i]
Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots Assn. of India v/s Civil
Aviation reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435 . [ii] B.R. Surendranath
Singh v/s Department of Mines and Geology reported in (2011) 5
SCC 449. [iii] Mahesh Singh Sikarwar v/s Union of India and
others reported in 2022 (4) JLJ 183. [iv] Mansukhlal Vithaldas
Chauhan v/s State of Gujarat reported in (1997) 7 SCC 622.
5. Learned Single Judge after referring the provisions of Regulation 270 of
M.P. Police Regulations in para 10 has held that the aforesaid provision says
that every order of punishment or exoneration whether original or appellate
shall be liable to be revised suo-motu by the "authority" or superior to the
authority making the order. We find that the word "authority" considered by
the learned Single Judge in para 10 does not find place in Regulation 270.
The power of suo-motu revision has not been conferred to the authority who
has passed the order. But, the order of suo-motu revision is conferred to the
"authority superior to the authority" making the order. In the present case,
the order of punishment was passed by Superintendent of Police, Neemuch
and if the power of revision was to be exercised, it ought to have been
exercised by the Deputy Inspector General of Police but, he could not have
acted on the letter of Additional Director General of Police (Vigilance). In
this regard, reference was made to the judgment passed in the case of Anil
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4428
5 WA-402-2023
Soni Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2008 (3) MPLJ, 378, wherein it has been
held that suo-motu power of revision can be exercised only by the authority
superior to the authority making the order. Similar view was taken in the
case of Vikram Singh Rana Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2006 (2) MPLJ,
6. The order was passed by the Superintendent of Police and the superior
authority as per the hierarchy of the competent authority under the M.P.
Police Regulations in Chapter VIII from Regulations 213 to 223, the superior
authority of Superintendent of Police is Deputy Inspector General of Police.
In the case of Suresh Pal Singh v/s State of Madhya Pradesh and others,
2012 (4) MPLJ, 415, it has been held that two different authorities cannot
undertake review in personal manner in the same matter.
7. In the present case, the power of revision under Regulation 270 has
been exercised by the superior authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of
Police as per the direction of Additional Director General of Police
(Vigilance). However, we find that the said issue has not been considered
and decided by the learned Single Judge taking note of the aforesaid points
raised before us and the State Government did not file any reply as per the
Court order dated 04.12.2021, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter
to the learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition afresh considering the
aforesaid issue as well as other issues involved in the petition.
8. Learned counsel for the State is at liberty to file reply in terms of the
issue raised by the learned Single Judge in its order dated 04.12.2021 and the
learned Single Judge is requested to decide the petition as early as possible
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4428
6 WA-402-2023
within a period of two months after the filing of reply by the counsel for the
State.
9. With the aforesaid, writ appeal is allowed and disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA)
JUDGE JUDGE
N.R.
