Kailash Chandra Bhatt vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 1301 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Kailash Chandra Bhatt vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 24 July, 2025

                                                                   2025:UHC:6566-DB


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                 AT NAINITAL
          HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR
                             AND
            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI

                                24TH JULY, 2025
               SPECIAL APPEAL No. 417 OF 2018

Kailash Chandra Bhatt                                              .....Appellant.

                                       Versus


State of Uttarakhand and others.                                   ...Respondents
Counsel for the appellant.             :   Mr. Akshay Pradhan, learned counsel
                                           for the appellant.
Counsel for the respondents            :   Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing
                                           Counsel for the State.


JUDGMENT :

(per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.)

Heard learned counsel for the appellant-writ

petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The parties are referred to by the nomenclature

before the learned Single Judge.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the State has

preferred IA No. 7671 of 2025 to recall the order dated

10.07.2025, whereby costs of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on

the third respondent.

4. We have perused the affidavit filed in support of the

Application and being satisfied with the cause shown in

Paragraph 3, wherein it is stated that the e-mail had been

wrongly e-mailed to e-mail I.D. of High Court (highcourt-

[email protected]) instead of Chief Standing Counsel, the earlier order

2025:UHC:6566-DB

of imposing costs of Rs. 10,000/- stands hereby recalled. The

Application (IA No. 7671 of 2025) stands allowed.

5. The facts are not in dispute. Certain charges were

framed against the petitioner on the ground that he had

concealed material facts from the employer at the time of

submission of the Application, i.e, he had pursued and

obtained, two degrees simultaneously. In that regard, the

petitioner was issued a show cause notice and, thereafter, a

penalty of censure was imposed against the petitioner on

18.10.2003.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an

Appeal, which came to be dismissed on 03.01.2004.

Thereafter, he preferred a revision before the Additional

Director General of Police (Administration). The same came to

be rejected by order dated 03.09.2012, but while so

dismissing, the Review Authority ordered holding of regular

disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for imposition

of major penalty. The said order came to be agitated before

the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge, by

order dated 21.03.2018, was pleased to reject the writ

petition on the short ground that the allegations leveled

against the petitioner are serious in nature and require a

thorough inquiry under the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of

Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, as

2025:UHC:6566-DB

adapted by the State of Uttarakhand in the year 2002

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').

7. The short question that arises is, whether the review

petitioner could have been placed worse off than he was prior

to the review petition?

8. Addressing the issue, this Court, by order dated

19.06.2025, framed two issues-(i) Whether a de novo inquiry

after lapse of nearly nine years was permissible and (ii)

Whether it was within the powers of the Revisional Authority

to direct a de novo inquiry?

9. In response to the said query, a clarification was

sought by this Court.

10. Today, learned Standing Counsel for the State has

produced the instructions received from the Inspector General

of Police (Personnel). Both the questions, which were framed

on 19.06.2025 and referred supra, are taken up for

consideration together.

11. The facts, narrated above, are not in dispute. The

respondents, in response to the questions framed by this

Court, forwarded the instructions, wherein in Paragraph Nos. 2

and 3, it has been stated as under:-

"2- With reference to the above, it is to inform that Rule 23 & 24 of the Uttaranchal [Uttar Pradesh) Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991] as adapted and promulgated under the

2025:UHC:6566-DB

Adaptation and Re-enactment Order, 2002, provides as follows:-

"Rule 23 "Revision" (1) An officer whose appeal has rejected by any authority subordinate to the Government is entitled to submit an application for revision to the authority next in rank above by which his appeal has been rejected within the period of three months from the date rejection of appeal.

On such an application the power of revision may be exercised only when, in consequent of flagrant irregularity, there appears to have been material injustice or miscarriage of justice:

Provided that the revising authority may on its own motion call for and examine the records of any order passed in appeal against which no revision has been preferred under this rule for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such procedure and pass such order with respect thereto as it may think fit:

Provided further that no order the first proviso shall be made except after giving the person effected a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.

Rule 24 "Enhancement of punishment -A punishment may be enhanced by--

(a) an appellate authority on appeal; or

(b) any authority superior to the authority to whom an application will lie ,in exercise of revisionary powers:

Provided that before enhancing the punishment such authority shall call upon the officer punished, to show cause why his punishment should not be so enhanced, and that an order by such authority so enhancing a punishment shall be deemed to be an original order of punishment."

3. Thus, it is evident from the provisions contained in the Punishment and Appeal Rules that the Revisional Authority is empowered to take any decision on a revision submitted by an officer. In accordance with the aforesaid provisions of the Punishment and Appeal Rules, and in light of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court, Nainital in similar matters, namely Special Appeal

2025:UHC:6566-DB

No. 81/08 Sarjeet Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, and Writ Petition No. 274/SB/2002 ajay Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, a decision was taken by the Revisional Authority in the said revision filed against the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 31-01-2014 on the appeal submitted by the petitioner, Kailash Chandra Bhatt, against the censure entry and punishment order issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, dated 18-10-2003, whereby it was decided to initiate a fresh departmental proceeding against the petitioner."

12. The charge was that the petitioner had pursued two

degrees simultaneously and successfully completed and

awarded degree certificates, and the other part of the charge

is that he had not revealed the details of the case registered

against him for offences punishable under Sections 323 and

504 of IPC, in which he came to be acquitted.

13. On these two grounds, a show cause notice came to

be issued to the petitioner and the Inquiry Authority submitted

its report, and the Disciplinary Authority, taking note of the

misconduct, was pleased to impose a punishment of censure

and a second show cause notice was issued as to why the

same should not be entered into the service record of the

petitioner.

14. Aggrieved by the imposition of punishment of

censure, an Appeal came to be preferred, which Appeal met

with the fate of rejection. Thereafter, the revision petition

came to be preferred.

2025:UHC:6566-DB

15. It is not in dispute that the revision is at the

instance of the petitioner and it is not a case of suo moto

revision. (emphasis by this Court).

16. A plain reading of the provisions of Rule 23 of the

Rules leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that an officer,

whose Appeal has been rejected, is entitled to seek revision of

the order, but while so enabling filing of a revision, the

provision also circumscribes the power of the Revisional

Authority and enables exercise of revisional powers only in the

event of there being a flagrant irregularity resulting in

material injustice or miscarriage of justice.

17. In the case on hand, a punishment came to be

imposed. The severity of the punishment or inadequacy of

punishment cannot be gone into by the Revisional Authority in

exercise of the power under sub-rule (1) of Rule 23 of the

Rules. Nevertheless, it is pertinent to note that the first

proviso enables the Revisional Authority to also initiate suo

moto revision or revision on its own motion after examining

the records of any order in Appeal against which no

revision has been preferred under this Rule for the purpose

of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order

or as to the regularity of such procedure and pass such order

with respect thereto as it may think fit. The second proviso to

sub-rule (1) of Rule 23 of the Rules stipulates that no order

2025:UHC:6566-DB

under the first proviso can be passed without affording a

reasonable opportunity of being heard to the effected person.

18. In the case on hand, there is no dispute that it is a

revision at the instance of the affected person. The scope of

the first proviso is also not unlimited. The Revisional

Authority is entitled to initiate a suo moto revision only for the

purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of the

order or as to the regularity of such procedure adopted by the

Appellate Authority. In the case on hand, the Revisional

Authority has transgressed the limits imposed by the proviso

itself and it is this proviso which enables him to exercise suo

moto revision.

19. The conclusion drawn by the Revisional Authority is

that the punishment imposed is grossly inadequate.

Inadequacy of punishment is not a ground upon which the

Revisional Authority could have exercised its powers on a

revision petition preferred under sub-rule (1) of Rule 23 of the

Rules.

20. In that view of the matter, the revision being at the

instance of the appellant and being in compliance with the

provisions of sub-rule (1) of Rule 23 of the Rules, the

Revisional Authority was devoid of any competence to direct a

de novo inquiry on the ground that punishment imposed is

2025:UHC:6566-DB

inadequate or that the Original Authority and the Appellate

Authority have shown leniency.

21. The other provision, upon which the reliance is

placed, is Rule 24 of the Rules, which provides for

'Enhancement of punishment'.

22. A reading of Rule 24 of the Rules would demonstrate

that such power is exercisable by the Appellate Authority

either on an 'Appeal' under clause (a) of Rule 24 or by any

Authority superior to the Authority to whom an Application will

lie in exercise of revisionary power, i.e. the Authority which

considered the review petition of the petitioner.

23. In the instant case, neither has clause (a) been

invoked in the form of an Appeal, nor has clause (b) been

invoked by application to an Authority higher in hierarchy to

the Revisional Authority.

24. In that view, the reliance on Rules 23 and 24 of the

Rules, in our considered view, is highly misconceived and

misplaced. The facts of the case not being in dispute, reliance

on Rule 24 of the Rules appears to be unfounded.

25. The Department, having neither preferred an Appeal

under clause (a) of Rule 24 of the Rules, nor having preferred

an Application to an Authority higher than the Revisional

Authority, nor the Revisional Authority having exercised its

suo moto power of revision, the decision of the Revisional

2025:UHC:6566-DB

Authority to set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority

and the Appellate Authority, in our considered opinion, is

wholly beyond the scope of consideration of a revision under

sub-rule (1) of Rule 23 of the Rules. That apart, it is almost

more than two decades since the appellant has entered

service and the order on the review petition came to be

passed after nearly a delay of more than 9 years, which, in

our opinion, is fatal to the power of the Disciplinary Authority

to frame any charge. That apart, the criminal case, in which

he is alleged to be arrayed as an accused, is under Section

323 of IPC, which provides for a punishment of either

description or with a fine, which may extend to one thousand

rupees.

26. The fact remains that a punishment prescribed

under the Act itself indicates that the offence is a minor

offence and he has been acquitted of the same.

27. As regards the other allegation that he has pursued

two degrees simultaneously, no material is placed before this

Court that either or both of the degrees have been cancelled

by the concerned Authorities/University.

28. In that view of the matter and in view of lack of

competence in the Revisional Authority to set aside the

punishment on a review petition preferred by the petitioner

and as the same would amount to the petitioner being placed

2025:UHC:6566-DB

in a worse off position than he was before he had approached

the Authority, which, in our considered opinion, is

impermissible, we are of the considered opinion that the

impugned proceedings warrant interference by this court.

29. It is also pertinent to note that B.Ed. course is a day

course and law is an evening college course and pursuing two

degrees simultaneously does not in any manner contravene

the provisions of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks

(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, as adapted by the

State of Uttarakhand in the year 2002.

30. In that view, the Appeal is allowed. The order dated

21.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 9

of 2013 is set aside. Consequently, the order dated

03.09.2012 passed by the Revisional Authority / respondent

No. 2 is also set aside. The order of the Original Authority,

i.e. the Disciplinary Authority dated 18.10.2003 stands

restored.

31. There shall be no order as to costs.

32. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed.

_______________ G. NARENDAR, C.J.

_________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J.

Dt: 24th July, 2025 Rathour

PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323 779d9e3aeb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25 946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF9

2A40CC6179B8E010331BA695239171F9 06FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2025.07.31 10:54:37 +05'30'