Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Jyoti Nigam vs State Of M.P on 18 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6363
1 WP-5797-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 18th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5797 of 2012
SMT.JYOTI NIGAM
Versus
STATE OF M.P
Appearance:
Shri Alok Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Naval Kishor Gupta G.A. appearing on behalf of Advocate
General.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of
Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22/02/2012 (Annexure P/1)
passed by respondent No. 3, whereby, order of minor punishment dated
16/08/2011 has been cancelled and regular departmental enquiry has been
directed to be conducted against the petitioner. She has also challenged the
charge sheet dated 23/07/2012 (Annexure P/2) issued in compliance of order
dated 22/02/2012.
The facts relevant for decision of this case are that the petitioner at the
relevant time was posted as Sub - Inspector, Kotwali, District Vidisha. She
was Investigating Officer in relation to the Criminal Case No. 694/2010 for
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The allegation against the
petitioner is that during the course of investigation she called the suspect
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6363
2 WP-5797-2012
Pankaj Soni at Police Station for interrogation and during interrogation she
misbehaved with him. It is also alleged that factum of calling the suspect to
the Police Station is not recorded by her in Rojnamcha and the case diary.
Taking note of the aforesaid allegation, respondent No. 4 initially after
calling explanation from the petitioner, imposed punishment of stoppage of
increment for one year without cumulative effect on the petitioner vide order
dated 16/08/2011 (Annexure P/3).
When the matter came to the knowledge of respondent No. 3, he
invoked provisions of Regulation 270 (4) of M.P. Police Regulation and took
the matter in suo-moto revision. He was of the opinion that allegations
levelled against the petitioner were serious in nature inasmuch as there was
allegation that she demanded Rs. 30,000/- from father of the suspect which
demonstrate corrupt motive. He, accordingly, issued a show cause notice to
the petitioner on 12/10/2011 (Annexure P/4) asking for her explanation as to
why the order dated 16/08/2011 be not cancelled and regular departmental
enquiry be conducted against her. The petitioner submitted her explanation
on 27/12/2011 which is filed as (Annexure P/6) along with writ petition.
Considering the matter over again, respondent No. 3 issued order dated
22/02/2012. The respondent No. 3 was of the opinion that minor punishment
imposed upon the petitioner is not sufficient in view of serious allegations
levelled against her. He, accordingly, cancelled the order dated 16/08/2011
and directed for conducting regular departmental enquiry against the
petitioner. In compliance of this order, respondent No. 4 issued charge sheet
dated 23/07/2012 (Annexure P/2). At this stage, petitioner approached this
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6363
3 WP-5797-2012
Court challenging the order dated 22/02/2012 and the charge sheet dated
23/07/2012. There is an interim order passed in this case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner raised singular ground while
challenging the impugned order and the charge sheet. He submits that
Regulation 270 (4) of M.P. Police Regulation cast an obligation on the
respondent No. 3 to have afforded opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner in addition to issuing show cause notice. Having failed to afford
opportunity of personal hearing, the impugned order dated 22/02/2012 and
charge sheet are vitiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy
reliance on the judgment dated 30/10/2017 passed by Division Bench of
this Court in W.A. No. 404/2017 in the case of Sant Lal vs. State of M.P. &
Ors.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the
impugned order and the charge sheet and submits that petitioner was given a
show cause notice before issuing impugned order and the petitioner has
submitted her explanation. Therefore, there is sufficient compliance of the
provision of Regulation 270 (4) of M.P. Police Regulation and also
principles of natural justice. He further submits that question of personal
hearing to the petitioner at this stage does not arise inasmuch as enquiry is
yet to be conducted against her wherein, she would be given full opportunity
including opportunity of personal hearing. He thus prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
Since entire arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is based
upon Regulation 270 (4) of M.P. Police Regulation and Division Bench
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6363
4 WP-5797-2012
judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Sant Lal (supra) , it is
appropriate to first deal with provision of Regulation 270 (4) of M.P. Police
Regulation, which is reproduced herein below for ready reference and
convenience:-
"(4) 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 the taking of
further evidence in the case:
Provided that it shall not vary or reverse any order unless notice has been served on the
parties interested and opportunity given to them for being heard."
A bare perusal of provision of sub regulation 4 makes it clear that
before varying or reversing any order, notice is required to be served upon
the interested parties and opportunity of being heard is given. Interpreting
this provision, the Division Bench of this Court in Sant Lal (supra) held that
in addition to issuance of show cause notice, opportunity of personal hearing
is also required to be given. Now the facts in the case of Sant Lal (supra)
needs to be considered. In that case, after issuance of show cause notice
competent authority, exercising power under Regulation 270 (4) of M.P.
Police Regulation, directly imposed punishment. In that context, the Division
Bench held that before issuing punishment order opportunity of personal
hearing ought to have been given to the incumbent in addition to the show
cause notice. However, facts of the instant case are different. In this case,
there is a show cause notice issued by the respondent No. 3 to the petitioner
and after taking explanation from her, the impugned order has been passed
where departmental enquiry has been directed to be conducted. Thus no
punishment has been imposed yet by the respondent No. 3. Therefore,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6363
5 WP-5797-2012
submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that for want of personal
hearing impugned action of the respondent No. 3 is vitiated is not acceptable.
The departmental enquiry, as directed by the respondent No. 3, is yet to be
conducted wherein, petitioner would be afforded full opportunity of hearing
including opportunity of personal hearing. Therefore, judgment passed in the
case of Sant Lal (supra) does not help the petitioner.
In view of aforesaid, since entire case of the petitioner is based on the
judgment of Division Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Sant Lal
(supra), which is found to be distinguishable on facts, the petitioner is not
entitled to any relief in the instant case.
Resultantly, the instant petition being devoid of merit and substance is
hereby dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
Durgekar
