Madhya Pradesh High Court
Umraosingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 September, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26024
1 WP-6637-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 11th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6637 of 2025
UMRAOSINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Akash Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Romil Verma - GA for State.
ORDER
The petitioner is challenging the impugned show cause notice dated
10.1.2025 passed by the respondent No.2. The petitioner earlier filed WP
No.2275/2022 challenging the order dated 4.1.2022 passed by the Director
General of Police in exercise of suo-motu revisional power under Regulation
270 of M.P. Police Regulations directing that the punishment of censure
imposed on the petitioner on 18.3.2021 is disproportionate and, therefore the
order of censure be cancelled and the charge sheet be issued.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the exercise of powers under
Regulation 270 of Police Regulation is contrary to the provisions of law, as
the remedy of revisional power can be exercised only within the period of six
months. the relevant paragraphs of the order are as under:-
"Counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order passed
by the respondents in exercise of the powers under Regulation
270 of the Police Regulations are illegal and contrary to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26024
2 WP-6637-2025
provisions of law on the ground that the impugned order has been
passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner and giving
opportunity of hearing to him. It is stated that as per the proviso
to sub Regulation 4 of Regulation 270, the respondents are under
obligation to issue a notice to the person interested and to grant
him opportunity of being heard before exercising suo-motu
revisional jurisdiction under Regulation 270. It is further
submitted that the provisions of Regulation 270 has to be read
with Rule 29 of MPCCA Rules, 1966 and the order impugned
could not have been passed after expiration of period of six
months. In support of his submissions he has placed reliance on
the judgment passed by co-ordinate bench in the case of Rajendra
Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of MP & Ors. 2010(1)MPLJ 417
wherein it has been held that in exercise of the suo motu revision
under Regulation 270 before cancelling the order of punishment
and directing for issuance of the charge sheet for holding regular
departmental enquiry, the opportunity of hearing by issuing a
show cause notice before exercise of suo motu power is must. The
order was quashed. He also placed reliance on the judgment
passed by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Angad Singh
Rathore Vs. State of MP & Ors 2010(1)MPLJ 171 wherein it has
been held that exercise of suo motu power of revision after more
than 8 months of the order of punishment is not permissible. It is
held that in absence of any provision in the Police Regulations
prescribing limitation for taking the matter in suo motu revision,
the Rule 29(1)(iii) of Rules 1966 gets attracted. The suo motu
powers cannot be exercised after six months for initiation of
departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The impugned order
of the Director General of Police was quashed.
Counsel for State supports the order impugned and submits that
since the punishment imposed on the petitioner has been found
inappropriate and, therefore, the authority has exercised the
powers under Regulations 270 of the Police Regulations which
empowers the revising authority to exonerate or remit, vary or
enhance the punishment imposed or may order a fresh enquiry
after recording the reasons in writing. However, counsel for State
could not demonstrate from the record that a notice was issued to
the petitioner and opportunity was afforded to him before passing
the impugned orders.
After hearing learned counsel for parties, it is apposite to refer
the provisions of Regulation 270 of the Police Regulations which
are reproduced as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26024
3 WP-6637-2025
"270. [(1) Every order of punishment of exoneration, whether
original or appellate shall be liable to revision suo-motu by any
authority superior to the authority making the order].
(2) Every appellate order by a final appellate authority shall be
liable to revision by such final appellate authority, on application
made in that behalf by the person against whom the order has been
passed.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, the expression "final
appellate authority" means the final authority empowered to hear
an appeal under Police Regulation 262.
(3) The provisions of Regulations 266, 267, 268 and 271 shall, as
nearly as may be , apply to an application for revision.
[(4) The revising authority may for reasons to be recorded in
writing exonerate or may remit, vary or enhance the punishment
imposed or may order a fresh enquiry or 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] ".
As per the proviso to Sub Regulations 4 of Regulations 270, an
order of punishment cannot be varied or reversed unless notice
has been served on the parties interested and opportunity was
given to them for being heard. Apparently, in the present case, no
notice has been served to the petitioner before passing the
impugned order and no opportunity of hearing has been given to
the petitioner. In the case of Angad Singh Rathore (supra) has
held that the notice and opportunity of hearing are mandatory
before exercising the powers under Rule 270 by the revisional
authority.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders dated 4.1.2022
passed by the Director General of Police and consequential order
of cancellation of order of punishment of Censure dated 6.1.2022
are unsustainable and are quashed with liberty to the competent
authority to proceed in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and disposed off.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that after the said order, the
impugned show cause notice has been issued vide Annexure P/9 mentioning
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:26024
4 WP-6637-2025
that the notice is being issued as per the direction of this Court (the
competent authority) to proceed in accordance with law. The said authority
has treated the order of this court as if the proceedings had to be initiated
mandatorily. He submits that the show cause notice initiating the suo motu
revisional proceedings beyond six months is contrary to the order passed by
this court as well as the judgment passed in the case of Angad Singh Rathore
Vs. State of MP & Ors. 2010(1) MPLJ 171.
Counsel for respondents submits that the petition has been filed
against the show cause notice without filing a reply to the same.
After hearing learned counsel for parties, the present petition is
disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a reply to the said show cause
notice raising all the objections within a period of 15 days from today and
the competent authority shall consider and decide the said representation in
accordance with law keeping in view the order passed by this court in the
case of Angad Singh Rathore (supra) within a period of 60 days thereafter
after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by passing a reasoned
and speaking order. The respondent No.2, before proceeding further in the
enquiry shall decide the objection raised by the petitioner.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
VM
