Enhancement of punishment by a revising authority requires personal hearing; written reply alone is insufficient.

The respondent, a police employee, was issued a show-cause notice on 9 March 2011, followed by a departmental enquiry.

He was initially punished on 30 April 2012 with withholding of one annual increment for one year without cumulative effect.

Subsequently, the revising authority considered the punishment inadequate, issued a second show-cause notice dated 24 May 2012, and, after receiving the respondent’s written reply, enhanced the punishment on 31 May 2012 to withholding of one annual increment for one year with cumulative effect.

No personal hearing was granted before the enhanced punishment was imposed.

The respondent’s departmental appeal and mercy petition were dismissed on 29 August 2012 and 17 December 2012, respectively.

The writ court quashed the orders and directed grant of consequential benefits, holding that the reviewing authority was required to provide an opportunity of personal hearing before imposing a prejudicial order.

The State preferred the present appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

The delay of 108 days in filing the appeal was condoned after the Court found the explanation satisfactory.

Whether the revising authority, while enhancing the punishment under Clause 4 of Regulation 270 of the M.P. Police Regulations, was required to grant the respondent an opportunity of personal hearing in addition to permitting him to submit a written reply.

Whether the writ court was justified in quashing the enhanced punishment and consequential orders for violation of the principles of natural justice.

Whether the decisions relied upon by the State in Smt. Jyoti Nigam v. State of M.P. and Santlal v. State of M.P. justified interference with the writ court’s order in the present factual circumstances.

Clause 4 of Regulation 270 of the M.P. Police Regulations empowers the revising authority, for reasons recorded in writing, to exonerate, remit, vary or enhance the punishment, or order a fresh enquiry or further evidence.

However, where the authority proposes to pass a prejudicial order enhancing punishment, the principles of natural justice require that the delinquent employee be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing, including an opportunity to appear personally or through counsel.

Relying on Fazal Bhai Dhala v. The Custodian-General, Evacuee Property, AIR 1961 SC 1397, the Court held that merely obtaining a written reply to a show-cause notice does not constitute adequate compliance with the requirement of personal hearing before passing an adverse order.

The Court distinguished Smt. Jyoti Nigam v. State of M.P. and Santlal v. State of M.P., where a regular departmental enquiry had been directed and the employee had participated in that enquiry.

The revising authority invoked its power under Regulation 270 to enhance the respondent’s punishment because it considered the original punishment disproportionate to the proved charges.

Although the respondent was issued a notice and allowed to submit a written reply, the authority neither granted him a personal hearing nor ordered a fresh enquiry before imposing a major penalty—namely, withholding of an increment with cumulative effect.

Applying Fazal Bhai Dhala, the Court held that a written response alone was insufficient where the proposed action was prejudicial.

The State’s reliance on Jyoti Nigam and Santlal was rejected because those cases involved regular departmental enquiries in which the delinquent employees had an opportunity to participate; no such enquiry or equivalent hearing occurred here.

The enhanced punishment was therefore imposed in breach of natural justice.

The absence of such hearing rendered the enhanced punishment and the consequential appellate and mercy orders legally unsustainable.

Finding no ground to interfere with the writ court’s decision, the Division Bench dismissed the State’s writ appeal and affirmed the quashing of the orders dated 31 May 2012, 29 August 2012 and 17 December 2012, along with the direction to grant consequential benefits.