Police Regulation 270 requires a personal hearing before an adverse suo motu revision order.

The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, was initially penalised by the Superintendent of Police on 27 August 2004 with withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect.

The Inspector General, Gwalior Zone, thereafter exercised suo motu review and passed an order dated 10 November 2005.

The petitioner challenged that order, contending that he had received only a show-cause notice and had not been given a personal hearing before the reviewing authority acted.

The petitioner had retired on 31 December 2004.

1. Whether the reviewing authority, before varying or reversing a punishment under Regulation 270 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, was required to afford the petitioner a personal hearing in addition to issuing a show-cause notice.

Regulation 270(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations empowers the revising authority, for reasons recorded in writing, to exonerate, remit, vary or enhance a punishment, or order a fresh inquiry or further evidence; however, it may not vary or reverse an order unless notice has been served on the interested parties and they have been given an opportunity to be heard.

Relying on the Division Bench decision in Sant Lal and the Supreme Court’s decision in Fazal Bhai Dhala v. The Custodian-General, Evacuee Property, AIR 1961 SC 1397, the Court held that a reasonable opportunity to be heard must precede a prejudicial order in revision; in the circumstances, that opportunity required a hearing and could not be satisfied merely by issuing a show-cause notice.

The reviewing authority’s order was made after a show-cause notice, but the record did not establish that the petitioner had been afforded a personal hearing before the punishment was varied.

Applying Regulation 270(4) and the principles in Sant Lal and Fazal Bhai Dhala, the Court concluded that the statutory requirement of an opportunity to be heard had not been met. The reviewing order therefore could not be sustained.

It directed the respondents to extend consequential benefits, including increments, and revise and pay the petitioner’s retiral benefits within three months of receipt of the certified order. As the petitioner had retired, the Court granted no liberty to the respondents to proceed against him further.