LPA No. 1074 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1074 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision 30 .8.2010 Raj Kumar ... Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. G.S.Lali ,Advocate for the appellant 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent by the unsuccessful appellant before the learned Single Judge. Two issues were raised and replied by the impugned judgement against the appellant. Firstly, it was submitted that power of review could be exercised only once and secondly it was argued that principles of natural justice were not observed and no show cause notice before reviewing the order dated 30.8.2006 (P.2) was issued. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant was charge-sheeted for remaining absent from duty for a period of 160 days and the charges LPA No. 1074 of 2010 2 were proved in a regular departmental enquiry. Vide order dated 30.4.1998 (P.1) the Commandant, 13th Battalion PAP inflicted the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with permanent effect. However, on appeal before the Deputy Inspector General his punishment was reduced from stoppage of three annual grade increments with permanent effect to that of temporary effect vide order dated 30.8.2006 (P.2). The aforesaid order was reviewed by the Inspector General of Police, PAP, Jalandhar by exercising suo motu powers under Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules (for brevity 'the Rules'). He restored the order dated 30.4.1998 and the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with permanent effect was consequently restored . It was against the aforesaid order that he approached this Court and his writ petition was dismissed. The learned Single Judge after noticing the aforesaid two contentions concluded that the power of review has been exercised only once and before passing the order of review under Rule 16.28 of the Rules, principles of natural justice were followed in as much as show cause notice dated 29.5.2008 was given to the appellant before passing order on 15.7.2008 (P.3). Mr. G.S.Lali, learned counsel for the appellant has again repeated the aforesaid two arguments. On our repeated queries, he did not add any other plea. Consequently, he has not been able to successfully persuade us to take a view different than the one taken by the learned Single Judge on his both the submissions. Infact his submission emanates from the incorrect assumption of facts. The power of review is available under Rule 16.28 of the Rules which has been exercised for the first time while passing the order of review on 15.7.2008. Secondly a show cause notice has been found to be issued on 29.5.2008 to the appellant before reviewing the earlier LPA No. 1074 of 2010 3 order which is evident from the self speaking order dated 15.7.2008 (P.3). There is thus no merit in the appeal and it does not warrant admission. Dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge ( Ritu Bahri ) 30 .8.2010 Judge okg