r-^ ^ : H.L. DATTU,CJ & SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. WRIT. N0. 36 OF 2007 APPELLANT Sheetal Das Mahant, aged about 55 years, son of Late Shri Dayalu Das Mahant, Ex-Sub inspector (Police) resident of vjjSage and post Chhai Via Kharsla, Dist. Ralgarh, CG. Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Chief Secretar/, Mantralay Home Department, Dau Kaiyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, CG. 2) Dlrector General of Poiloe, Police Heaa Quarters, Chhattisgarh Government Raipur, CG. 3) inspector Generai of Potlce, Raipur, CG. 4) Deputy inspector Generat of Poiice, Bilaspur (CG). 5) Superintendent of Potice, Dist. BHaspur CG. Pieseni: Shri Bharat Rajput, counsei for the appeilant. Shri N-K. Agravral, Dy. Advocate General for respondents/State. ORAL . (Passed on 2nd April, 2097) The foiiowing oral- order of the Court was passed by N.L. CJ. Thls appeai is dlrected against the order dated 8-1-2007 by the iearned Slngie Judge in Writ Petition No. 692/2004. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge^ has sustained the orders .;.<••\ passed by the Director General of Poiice (Revisional Authority) dated 1-4-2002. 2) Brief facts are that : Petltioner was appolnted as-Assistant Sub-lnspector at Pojice Station Shaktl Haii - Seepat While in service, he was a notice Biia dlrecting him to show why disciplinary proceedlngs shouid not be agalnst him. After recelpt of said show cause notlce, the petitioner had his repiy. 3) Not being wjth.explanation so offered by the petltioner, the Dlsclpllrsary' Authority of the Police Force had thought it flt to issue a charge memo 30-11-1997. The delinquent offlcer'had replied that charge memo. " 4) The Dssciplinary Authority had appointed an enquiry officer to enquire into the allegations made in the charge memo. The enquiry offlcer hoidlng an enquir^ had submitted his report, the evidence recorded and other relevant documents to the Dlsclplinap/ Authority l.e., the Sisperintendent of PoSlce, Bilaspur. The enquirv? offlcQr found ^ the deiinquent officer guilty of the misconduct The DJsdpilnary Authorifr^ after concurring with the findings of the enquiry offlcer irnposed a punishment of wjthhoiding one increment with cumuiatlve efTect. 5) Aggrieved by the aforesald orde-r by the Superintendent of Po!ice, Bilaspur (Disclpiinary Authority), the deiinquent offlcer had fiSed an appeal before the Oeputy Snspector General of Poilce, Bilaspur Divlsion, Biiaspur. The appeal was rejected by the First Appeliate f Authority, ^ ^•' I.. 6) PetltEoner, thereafter had filed a revision before the Director General of Police. !n the revision so fiied, petitioner's primary contention was that the punishment that was imposed by the Disciplinaiy Authority is not proportionate with the .gravity of charges and proved against the petitioner. 7) The revisionai authorlty whlie dlsposlng of the revjsion petition flled by the petltioner In exerdse of his power under the Reguiation 270 (4) of the Police Regulation/has enhanced th$ punlshment and thereby the services of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner fiied W.P. No.692/2004 befor© this Court. One of the contentions canvassed by the iearned counsei appearing for tne 'petitioner In tne writ was that before enhancing the punishment in the revision fiied by the petitioner, the revislonal authority ought to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In aid of his submission, petltJoner had reiied upon Reguiation 270 of the Poiice Regulations. 8) Learned Slngie Judge has rejected the writ petltlon on the ground that the revisional authority had Jssued a show cause notice to the petitioner and petitloner had replied to the same and. therefore, there Is fuil compiiance with the statutory regulation. Aggrieved by the said order passed by learned SingJe Judge, appeilant is before us In tnis appeal. 9) Learned counsei appearing for the the contentlons canvassed before the learned Slngle Judge and further that the !earned Single Judge may.not be justified in saylng that mere issuance of show would fuifiii the requirements of the Statutory Reguiation. | -<6 ^ !i ^ 10) Percontra, Shri N.K. Agrawa!, learned Deputy Advocat®GsneraE appearing for the State sought to justiiy the impugned order passed by learned slngie Judge. 11) In order to appreciate the contentlons canvassed by learned counsel for the appe'lant, the provisions of Regulation 270 of Regulations requlre to be noticed. They are as under: "270.1(1) Every order o? punishment of exoneratlon, whether origlnai or appeiiate. shail be ilabie to revision suo-moto by any authority superior to the autnority maklng the ord©r1. (2) Every appeiiate order by a final appellate authority shall be Slabie to revisson by such final appelEate authority, on appllcatlon made In'that behalf by the psrson against whom the order has been passed. Explanation.- For the purposes .of thls dause, the expression "final appellate authorlty" means the finai authority empov^ered to hear an under Police Regulation262. (3) The provlsions of Reguiations 266, 267, 268 and 271 shail, as nearly as may be< appiy to an applicatlon for revision. [(4) The revising authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing exonerate or may remit, vary or enhance the punishment imposed or may order a fresh enqulry or the taking of furtber evidence In the case: Provided that it sha!l not vary or reverse any order uniess notice has been sen/ed cn the parties jnterested and opportunity given to them for belng heard]." 4A^<t{^ 12) Sub-reguiation (1) of ReguSation 270 authorizes the person /s aggrieved and also the authority under the Act to suo motu revlse the 'fl s- K ^ order passed by a subordinate authority. Sub-reguiatlon (2) of Regulation 270 provides that a person if he is aggrieyed by the order passed by the final appel!ate authority, can afso make an applicatlon before the reyisionai authority to revlse the order so by the flrst authority. 13) The meaning of expression 'final appellate authority' is statutorily defined to mean flnal authority empowered to hear an under Poiice Regulation 262. 14) Sub-regulatlon (4) of Reguiation 270 authorizes the revislng authority elther to exonerate or may remit, vary or enhance the Imposed or may order a fresh enguiry or order for taklng further evldence In the matter. Proviso appended to sub-reguiation (4) of Regulatlon 270 specifically states that the revising authority shali not var/ or reverse any order unless a notice has been seryred on the parties Interested and opDortunifr^ glven to them for being heard. (Emphasls suQp!led bv us). <^^s. 15) Learned Singte Judge in his order observed that mere issuance of a show cause notice is sufficient to exercise the powers by the revising authority under sub-reguJation (4) of Regulation 270. We are afraid that the said reasoning of Searned Single Judge is s^st in consonance with the sub-reguiation (4) of Reguiation 270. 16) Provlso appended to sub-regulation (4) of Reguiation 270 speaks of two things; firstly, a notice requlres to be served on the parties interested in the iis and' secondly an opportunity of being heard /^L^t'SeS requires to be granted before the revislng authority varies or newslRg an order. That oniy means it is not just issuance of.show cause notlce, but also an opportunlty of belng heard requlres to be granted 1 "^ ^ •V to the partles interested. This aspect of the matter is not noticed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we cannbt sustain the order so passed. 17) in view of the above, the foiiowing: Qrder (1) The appea! is ailowed. (il) The order passed by Searned singie Judge is set aside. (iil) The matter Is remanded back to revlsional authority to re-do the matter In accordance wlth !aw keeping in view the observations made by us In the course of order. (iv) AI! other contentions are jeft open to the parties. /^ (v) Ordered accordjngly.< Sd/- Chief Justice .^^ Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge