Regulation 270(4) requires a personal hearing before a revisional authority varies punishment adversely.

The petitioner, a police constable, was initially awarded censure by the Superintendent of Police in 2005.

In subsequent departmental proceedings, stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed. That punishment and the appellate order were quashed in an earlier writ petition, with liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with Police Regulation 270(4).

After issuing a show-cause notice dated 14 August 2014 and receiving the petitioner’s reply, the Inspector General, by order dated 10 April 2017, cancelled the censure and imposed stoppage of one increment for one year without cumulative effect.

The petitioner challenged that order, contending that his reply had not been considered and that he had not been given a personal hearing.

1. Whether a revising authority exercising powers under Police Regulation 270(4) must provide a personal hearing after issuing a show-cause notice before passing an adverse order.

2. Whether the impugned order could stand where the petitioner’s reply was not considered and no personal hearing was afforded.

Police Regulation 270(4) authorises the revising authority, for reasons recorded in writing, to exonerate, remit, vary or enhance punishment, or order a fresh enquiry; its proviso bars variation or reversal of an order unless notice is served and the interested party is given an opportunity to be heard.

In Fazal Bhai Dhala v. Custodian-General, Evacuee Property, AIR 1961 SC 1397, the Supreme Court explained that the person affected must receive a reasonable opportunity of being heard before a prejudicial revisional order is made; a show-cause notice alone does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.

The Court also relied on the Division Bench decision in Sant Lal v. State of M.P., which held that an order under Regulation 270 must follow an opportunity of hearing.

The Court found that, although the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply to the show-cause notice, the record did not establish that its grounds had been considered, and no personal hearing had been afforded before the adverse order was passed.

Applying Regulation 270(4) and the principles in Fazal Bhai Dhala and Sant Lal, the Court held that issuing a notice and receiving a written reply did not, in the circumstances, meet the requirement of a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The order therefore could not be sustained.

Given the age of the matter, the 2005 incident and the respondents’ failure to comply with Regulation 270(4), the Court granted no liberty to initiate fresh action against the petitioner.

The petition was disposed of.