Regulation 270 revision cancelling a penalty requires prior hearing before directing fresh departmental proceedings.

The petitioners, serving as an Assistant Sub-Inspector and Constable in the Madhya Pradesh Police, were posted at Mauganj.

During night patrolling on 1 November 2022, they received information about an injured person at a bus stand, shifted him to hospital, and recorded the incident in the Rojnamcha as an accident.

A subsequent social-media video allegedly indicated that the police had been informed of a life-threatening assault.

Following a preliminary enquiry, the petitioners were found negligent, and respondent No. 5 imposed the minor penalty of “Censure” by order dated 31 March 2023.

Respondent No. 4, exercising suo motu revisional powers under Regulation 270 of the Police Regulations, set aside the penalty by order dated 4 July 2023 and directed initiation of fresh departmental proceedings.

Consequently, a charge-sheet dated 25 September 2023 was issued against the petitioners and the Station House Officer, and a joint departmental enquiry was commenced.

The petitioners challenged the revisional order and consequential charge-sheet, principally on the ground that no notice or opportunity of hearing had been provided before the penalty was annulled.

Whether the revisional authority could exercise suo motu powers under Regulation 270 of the Police Regulations to set aside the penalty and direct fresh departmental proceedings without issuing notice to, and affording an opportunity of hearing to, the petitioners.

Whether the consequential charge-sheet and departmental enquiry founded upon the impugned revisional order were legally sustainable.

Regulation 270 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, including its proviso, requires that an affected employee be given notice and an opportunity of hearing before an order imposing penalty is set aside in suo motu revision and fresh departmental proceedings are directed.

The Court relied upon Rajendra Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of M.P. and Others, 2010 (1) MPLJ 417, which held that failure to provide such hearing violates both the proviso to Regulation 270 and the principles of natural justice.

The Court also referred to Basanti Gaur v. State of M.P. and Others, 2009 (4) MPLJ 635, and Angad Singh Rathore v. State of M.P. and Others, 2010 (1) MPLJ 171, as relied upon by the petitioners.

The Court found that respondent No. 4 had exercised revisional jurisdiction under Regulation 270, annulled the earlier penalty of “Censure,” and directed a fresh departmental enquiry without first issuing notice or affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

Applying the rule stated in Rajendra Kumar Chaturvedi, the Court held that such prior hearing was mandatory because the revisional order adversely affected the petitioners by reopening the disciplinary matter and exposing them to fresh proceedings.

The absence of the required opportunity rendered the revisional order contrary to Regulation 270 and violative of natural justice.

Since the charge-sheet was consequential to the invalid revisional order, it too could not survive.

The matter was remitted to respondent No. 4 for fresh consideration and an appropriate order in accordance with law, after granting the petitioners a full opportunity of hearing.

The exercise was directed to be completed preferably within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order, with the decision to be communicated to the petitioners forthwith.