Disciplinary authority cannot suo-motu revise its own punishment order without statutory power and prior notice.

The Petitioner, an Inspector in the Madhya Pradesh Police, was issued a show-cause notice by the Inspector General (I.G.), Gwalior Range. Following the Petitioner’s reply, the disciplinary authority (Respondent No. 3) passed an order on 14.11.2022 imposing a punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect.

The Petitioner did not appeal this order. Subsequently, the same authority (Shri D. Sriniwas Verma) issued an impugned order dated 09.01.2023 recalling/revising the initial punishment and directing the issuance of a fresh charge-sheet for a regular departmental inquiry.

The Petitioner challenged this revision on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice.

1. Whether the disciplinary authority has the power under the Police Regulations or M.P. Civil Services Rules to review or recall its own completed punishment order.

2. Whether the impugned revision order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and Regulation 270 of the Police Regulations.

Regulation 270 of the Police Regulations mandates that while an order of punishment is liable to suo motu revision, such power is generally vested in an authority "superior to the authority making the order".

An opportunity of hearing is mandatory under the proviso to Regulation 270 before any order is varied or reversed to the detriment of the employee, as established in Sant Lal v. State of M.P. and others (W.A. No. 404/2017) and Rajendra Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of M.P. and others [2010 (1) MPLJ 417].

The court found that the disciplinary authority exceeded its jurisdiction by attempting to revise its own prior order. Under Regulation 270(1), the power of revision is typically reserved for a superior authority, yet in this instance, the same individual who passed the initial punishment order sought to recall it.

The court noted that the impugned order dated 09.01.2023 and the subsequent charge-sheet were issued without providing the Petitioner a show-cause notice or an opportunity to be heard. This failure to comply with the proviso to Regulation 270, which expressly prohibits varying an order unless notice is served and a hearing is granted, rendered the administrative action procedurally and legally unsustainable.

The High Court quashed the impugned orders dated 18.11.2022 and 09.01.2023, along with the charge-sheet dated 02.01.2023 (alternatively cited as 02.02.23) and all consequential actions. The petition was allowed.