Revision of punishment under Regulation 270 requires a superior authority and prior hearing.

The petitioner challenged the punishment order dated 28 November 2022, the subsequent order dated 9 January 2023, and the consequential charge-sheet issued by the departmental authorities.

A common/joint charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner and Manish Kumar Sharma, pursuant to which a joint departmental inquiry was conducted and a common punishment order was passed against both employees.

The appeal against the punishment order was rejected on 9 January 2023 by D. Srinivas Verma, who was also the authority involved in the earlier disciplinary action.

Manish Kumar Sharma had earlier challenged substantially identical orders in W.P. No. 27374 of 2023, which was allowed by the High Court on the ground that the order dated 9 January 2023 was contrary to Regulation 270 of the M.P. Police Regulations, 1959, particularly because it was passed by the same authority and without adherence to the prescribed procedure.

The State opposed the petition, principally contending that it was delayed, but was unable to distinguish the petitioner’s case from that of Manish Kumar Sharma.

The petitioner stated that he approached the Court promptly after learning of the relief granted to the similarly situated co-delinquent.

1. Whether the disciplinary and appellate/revisional orders passed in the petitioner’s case were without jurisdiction because the same authority purported to revise or alter the earlier disciplinary decision, contrary to Regulation 270 of the M.P. Police Regulations, 1959?

2. Whether the impugned orders and consequential charge-sheet were vitiated for failure to provide notice and an opportunity of hearing, as required by the proviso to Regulation 270 and the principles of natural justice?

3. Whether the petitioner, being identically situated with Manish Kumar Sharma and having participated in common disciplinary proceedings, was entitled to the same relief notwithstanding the alleged delay in filing the writ petition?

Regulation 270 of the M.P. Police Regulations, 1959 permits suo motu revision of an order of punishment or exoneration by an authority superior to the authority that made the order; it also requires compliance, as far as applicable, with Regulations 266, 267, 268 and 271, and prohibits variation or reversal of an order unless notice is served on the interested parties and an opportunity of hearing is provided.

The Court relied on Sant Lal v. State of M.P., W.A. No. 404/2017, which held that an opportunity of hearing is mandatory before action is taken under the proviso to Regulation 270.

The Court also relied on Rajendra Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of M.P., 2010 (1) MPLJ 417, concerning the requirement of natural justice before altering a disciplinary order.

The Court also followed its earlier decision in Manish Kumar Sharma, where materially identical orders were quashed because the same authority had revised its earlier decision without jurisdiction and without hearing the delinquent employee.

On delay and equal treatment, the Court referred to BSNL v. Ghanshyam Dass, (2011) 4 SCC 374, and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Shrivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, recognising that similarly situated employees should not be discriminated against and may receive the same relief where the factual and legal circumstances are identical.

The Court found that the petitioner and Manish Kumar Sharma had been proceeded against through a common charge-sheet and joint departmental inquiry, punished by a common order, and subjected to rejection of their appeals by a common order.

Since the same authority, D. Srinivas Verma, had acted in relation to the earlier disciplinary decision and thereafter passed the impugned order, the exercise was inconsistent with Regulation 270, which contemplates revision by an authority superior to the authority that made the original order.

Further, the impugned action was taken without the required notice or opportunity of hearing, violating both the express proviso to Regulation 270 and the principles of natural justice.

The State could not distinguish the petitioner’s case from the earlier decision in Manish Kumar Sharma.

The Court therefore held that the petitioner was identically situated and entitled to the same relief.

The objection of delay was rejected in substance because the petitioner approached the Court soon after learning of the relief granted to the similarly situated co-delinquent, and denial of equivalent relief would result in impermissible discrimination.

Applying the principle of equal treatment to the petitioner, who was identically situated with Manish Kumar Sharma, the Court quashed and set aside all three impugned orders and consequential actions.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of in favour of the petitioner.