A disciplinary authority cannot revise its own punishment order under Regulation 270 without notice and hearing.

The petitioner and Manish Kumar Sharma were proceeded against through a common departmental process arising from a joint charge-sheet, followed by a joint departmental inquiry and a common punishment order dated 28 November 2022.

The petitioner’s appeal was rejected by order dated 9 January 2023 by D. Srinivas Verma, the same authority who had passed the original order.

The petitioner challenged the punishment order, appellate order and consequential charge-sheet under Article 226, contending that the same authority could not revise or recall its own order and that the action violated Regulation 270 of the Police Regulations and principles of natural justice.

The Court noted that Manish Kumar Sharma had already obtained relief in an identical case, in which the order dated 9 January 2023 was set aside for being contrary to Regulation 270.

The State opposed the petition, principally raising delay, but was unable to distinguish the petitioner’s case from that of Manish Kumar Sharma.

Whether the same authority could revise or recall its earlier punishment order under Regulation 270 of the Police Regulations

Whether the punishment and appellate orders, passed without a fresh opportunity of hearing and in alleged violation of Regulation 270, were liable to be quashed

Whether the petitioner, being identically situated with Manish Kumar Sharma and having approached the Court after learning of the relief granted to him, was entitled to the same relief notwithstanding the alleged delay

Regulation 270 of the Police Regulations permits suo motu revision of an order of punishment or exoneration only by an authority superior to the authority that made the original order; its proviso requires notice and an opportunity of hearing before an order is varied or reversed.

The Court relied on Sant Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.A. No. 404/2017, for the principle that an opportunity of hearing is mandatory before action is taken under the proviso to Regulation 270.

It also followed the identical decision in Manish Kumar Sharma, which held that the same authority could not revise its earlier order without jurisdiction and without observing natural justice.

Under BSNL v. Ghanshyam Dass, (2011) 4 SCC 374, relief granted in individual litigation is not automatically available to fence-sitters, subject to recognised exceptions; however, the principle of equal treatment applies where similarly situated employees are proceeded against on identical facts.

The Court further referred to State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, concerning the entitlement of similarly situated employees to consistent treatment.

The Court found that the petitioner and Manish Kumar Sharma had been subjected to a common charge-sheet, common departmental inquiry, common punishment order and common appellate order, making their cases factually identical.

Since the appellate/revisional order dated 9 January 2023 was passed by the same authority that had issued the original punishment order, rather than by an authority superior to it, the action was inconsistent with Regulation 270.

Further, the order was passed without notice or an opportunity of hearing, contrary to the mandatory procedural safeguard recognised in Sant Lal and the principles of natural justice.

The Court also rejected the delay objection in substance, observing that the petitioner approached the Court promptly after learning that the identically situated co-delinquent had obtained relief, and that denying him the same benefit would result in discriminatory treatment.

It quashed and set aside the punishment order dated 28 November 2022, the appellate order dated 9 January 2023, and the consequential charge-sheet dated 2 January 2023, together with all consequential actions.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.