Revisional order restoring punishment quashed for failure to address findings on violation of natural justice.

The petitioner, a police official, was penalized by the Superintendent of Police, Sagar, on 08.09.2010 with the withholding of increments with cumulative effect for alleged dereliction of duty regarding missing person investigations

An appellate authority quashed this punishment on 12.02.2012, finding that the petitioner had been transferred on 13.08.2009—before the relevant case diary entries—and that the mandatory show-cause notice was never served upon him

However, the Inspector General (Revisional Authority) exercised suo moto powers under Regulation 270 of the Police Regulations, set aside the appellate order, and restored the original punishment

The petitioner challenged the revisional order via this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

1. Whether the Revisional Authority erred in law by restoring the punishment without addressing the appellate finding regarding the non-service of notice and violation of principles of natural justice

2. Whether the petitioner could be held liable for dereliction of duty for investigation periods occurring after his transfer from the concerned police station

Article 226 of the Constitution regarding judicial review of administrative actions

Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the requirement of a fair hearing and service of notice before the infliction of a penalty

Regulation 270 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, which governs the suo moto revisional powers of the Inspector General

The Court observed that the appellate authority had specifically noted the absence of any acknowledgment of service of notice in the disciplinary file

The Revisional Authority, however, failed to cross-check the record or provide any finding to dispute this lack of service, thereby ignoring a fundamental breach of natural justice

The High Court noted that while the missing reports dated back to 2006 and 2008 (implying the petitioner had some tenure during the investigation), he was transferred on 13.08.2009, and subsequent diary entries were made by others

The Court found that the Revisional Authority failed to provide a reasoned order addressing these specific factual contradictions regarding the petitioner’s period of responsibility and the procedural lapses in the disciplinary inquiry

The matter was remanded to the Revisional Authority to conduct a specific fact-finding inquiry regarding (i) whether the show-cause notice was actually served on the petitioner, and (ii) the extent of the petitioner’s involvement in the investigations prior to his transfer in 2009. The Authority was directed to pass a detailed reasoned order and exonerate the petitioner if he is not found guilty