Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kaushalya Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11098
1 WP.No. 5977 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 1st OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 5977 of 2017
SMT. KAUSHALYA MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Katare - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Shiraz Qureshi - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):
“(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be
allowed;
(ii) That, the order Annexure P/1 dated 30.1.2015 and the order
Annexure P/2 dated 6.10.2015 and 16.3.2016 passed in appeal and
mercy appeal by the respondents no.3 and 2 respectively may kindly
be directed to be set aside.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/10/2026
7:22:44 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11098
2 WP.No. 5977 of 2017
(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this
Hon’ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner.
Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was
working on the post of A.S.I and stood superannuated on 31.07.2017. It is
submitted that at the relevant point of time petitioner was posted as ASI. While
on duty at District Shivpuri, petitioner along with one Head Constable No.318
Sukhdev Ram Bhagat and Constable No.298 Rajendra Yadav who were posted at
Police Station Mayapur was deployed with the duties to take one prisoner namely
Leelawati W/o Halkaiya who was an accused in Crime No.132/2013 under
Sections 302, 307, 323, 294, 147, 148, 149, 506-B of IPC. On 24.6.2013, accused
Leelawati W/o Halkaiya was produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class
Pichhore and while returning from the Court of Pichhore petitioner along with
the accused got late. Due to late hours, the accused could not be brought to
Central Jail Gwalior and was asked to stay back at remand room Police Station
Pichhore. Accused Leelawati was kept in the remand room of Police Station
Pichhore on 24.6.2013 along with petitioner and other constables. On 25.6.2013
in the morning around 5:00 to 6:00 accused Leelawati ran away from the police
custody and after running away of the accused the petitioner informed the Police
Station and other staff about the incident and petitioner filed an application
before the S.H.O. Police Station Pichhore and the accused was thereafter
searched and immediately after passing of two days accused Leelawati was
caught and arrested by petitioner, Thereafter, respondent no.5 issued notice to the
petitioner along with other constables and finally by order dated 10.10.2013
punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect was
issued against petitioner and upon other constables. No appeal was preferred by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/10/2026
7:22:44 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11098
3 WP.No. 5977 of 2017
petitioner against the said order. Suo motu powers were invoked by respondent
no.3 by order dated 16.1.2014 finding the punishment to be inappropriate and the
departmental enquiry was ordered against petitioner and other constables. It is
submitted that no notice prior to reviewing the order of respondent no.5 was
issued to the petitioner which is violative of Police Regulation 270 (4).
Thereafter, departmental enquiry was ordered by appointing enquiry officer who
then submitted his enquiry report in which enquiry officer did not find the entire
charges proved against the petitioner and only the charge was partially found
proved against petitioner and respondent no.3 while imposing punishment found
that the entire charge is proved against petitioner and imposed the punishment of
stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. It is further submitted
that joint enquiry was ordered but no permission under Rule 18 of the M.P. Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 was taken before
conducting the joint enquiry. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an appeal before
Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the
ground of delay and merits were not considered. Thereafter, petitioner preferred
Mercy Appeal which too was dismissed. It is settled principle of law that
converting the minor penalty to major by exercising suo motu revision,
opportunity of hearing and personal hearing is mandatory as it is held in the case
of Vikram Singh Rana Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2007 (1) MPLJ 95. He
also relied upon the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in case
of Sant Lal Vs. State of MP and ors. decided on 30.10.2017 in
WA.No.404/2017.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/State
supports the impugned order, opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/10/2026
7:22:44 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11098
4 WP.No. 5977 of 2017
petitioner and submits that DIG is competent authority to review or modify the
punishment order passed by Disciplinary Authority as per Regulation 270 (1) of
the Police Regulation.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Admittedly, before issuing the impugned order dated 30.01.2015
(Annexure P/1), no personal opportunity of hearing was afforded to petitioner.
Even, a show-cause notice had not been issued. As per the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in Sant Lal (supra), it is necessary to provide an
opportunity of hearing before passing any order under proviso to Police
Regulation 270. The relevant provision of Police Regulation 270 is reproduced
below for ready reference and convenience:
“270. (1) Every order of punishment or exoneration, whether original
or appellate shall be liable to revision suo-motu by any authority
superior to the authority making the order.
(2) Every appellate order by a final appellate authority shall be liable
to revision by such final appellate authority on application made in that
behalf by the person against whom the order has been passed.
Explanation:- For the purpose of this clause the expression
“final appellate authority” means the final authority empowered to hear
an appeal under Police Regulation 262.
(3) The provisions of Regulation 266, 267, 268 and 271 shall be as
nearly as may be apply to an application for revision.
(4) The revising authority may for reason to be recorded in writing
exonerate or may remit vary of enhance the punishment imposed or
may order a fresh enquiry of the taking of further evidence in the case:
Provided that it shall not vary or reverse any order unless notice
has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to
them for being heard.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/10/2026
7:22:44 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11098
5 WP.No. 5977 of 2017
6. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Sant Lal (supra) has held as
under :-
“That the said order was taken up in suo motu review by the
Reviewing Authority in exercise of his powers conferred vide Clause 4
of MP Police Regulation 270 which envisages:-
The revising authority may for reason to be recorded in
writing exonerate or may remit, vary or enhance the
punishment imposed or may order a fresh enquiry of the
taking of further evidence in the case:
Provided that it shall not vary or reverse any order unless
notice has been served on the parties interested and
opportunity given to them for being heard.
After issuing show cause notice to the appellant, the Reviewing
Authority enhanced the penalty of stoppage of one increment with
non-cumulative effect into that of stoppage one increment with
cumulative effect vide order dated 07.06.2013. The said order was
challenged in Writ Petition No.3889/2016 on the ground that the order
passed in exercise of the power under Clause 4 of Regulation 270 of
MP Police Regulation was without affording an opportunity of hearing
and therefore, the same is bad in the eye of law.
Challenge is made to the order of learned Single Judge dated
31.07.2017 who on the following finding dismissed the petition:-
“After hearing the argument and perusing the record, it
is apparent that the allegation against the petitioner is that
despite specific directions, he had not handcuffed the
accused Shakir S/o Tahsil Khan during his appearance
before the court as a result he was able to run away. In reply
to show cause notice petitioner submitted that since the
accused was limping and was having bandage in his leg,
therefore he presumed that probably handicapped person or
the person suffering from heart disease and senior citizen
accused persons are exempted from handcuff and therefore
he had not handcuffed accused Shakir. But there is no
specific reply to the show cause notice that why there wasSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/10/2026
7:22:44 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:110986 WP.No. 5977 of 2017
deliberate and willful dereliction of duty in violation of
specific direction to handcuff such an accused person.
Petitioner’s reply itself having recourse to probability could
not have been accepted and therefore the Inspector General
of Police looking to the misconduct of the petitioner in not
following the instruction of the superior authorities, though
he was bound by them as per the uniform service, has
passed the impugned order inflicting the penalty of stoppage
of one increment with cumulative effect. There is no
violation of any of the provisions of the Police Regulations
inasmuch as under Regulation 270 (1) of the Police
Regulations, the revisional authority can exercise his
jurisdiction even in the matter of exoneration.
As far as provisions of Regulation 270 (4) are
concerned, petitioner was issued a show cause notice. He
was given an opportunity of hearing and thereafter
impugned order has been passed, which can not be said to
be excessive or disproportionate to the alleged misconduct
of the petitioner, which facilitated in running away of the
accused person.”
The question is as to whether it is incumbent upon the Reviewing
Authority to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the
appellant/petitioner, after issuing show cause notice for enhancement
of punishment?
Evident it is from Clause 4 of Regulation 270 of MP Police
Regulation that the revising authority may for reason to be recorded in
writing exonerate or may remit, vary or enhance the punishment
imposed or may order a fresh enquiry of the taking of further evidence
in the case. It is further provided that the Reviewing Authority shall
not vary or reverse any order unless notice has been served on the
parties interested and opportunity given to them for being heard.
Thus, it is clear that any order which is to be passed in suo motu
review should be passed only after affording an opportunity and after
giving hearing. A similar question came up for consideration in the
case of Fazal Bhai Dhala Vs. The Custodian-General, Evacuee
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/10/2026
7:22:44 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11098
7 WP.No. 5977 of 2017
Property, New Delhi and another and The Custodian Evacuee
Property, Madras AIR 1961 SC 1397, wherein it is held that :-
“The proviso secures the requirements of the principles
of natural justice when it says that any order prejudicial
to any person shall not be passed without giving such
person a reasonable opportunity of being heard. No
specific provision for service of notice in order that such
a reasonable opportunity of being heard be given has
however been made by any rule. It goes without saying
that in the large majority of cases, the Custodian “will,
in order to give the party concerned a reasonable
opportunity of being heard, first give him a notice of his
intention to examine the records to satisfy himself as to the
legality or the propriety of any order passed by the
subordinate officer and require such person to show cause if
any why the order should not be revised or modified, and
then if and when the party appears before him in response to
the notice, the Custodian has also to allow him, either
personally or through counsel, a reasonable opportunity of
being heard. In suitable cases it may be proper and
necessary for the Custodian to allow the party concerned
even to adduce evidence. There may be cases however
where the party concerned is already before the Custodian,
so that all that is necessary for the Custodian to do is to
inform such party of his intention to examine the records to
satisfy himself whether a particular order should be revised,
and then to give him a reasonable opportunity of being
heard. There would be no necessity in such a case to serve a
formal notice on the party who is already before the
Custodian and the omission to serve the notice can be of no
consequence. What the law requires is that the person
concerned should be given a reasonable opportunity of
being heard before any order prejudicial to him is made in
revision. If this reasonable opportunity of being heard
cannot be given without the service of the notice the
omission to serve the notice would be fatal; where however
proper hearing can be given without service of notice, itSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/10/2026
7:22:44 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:110988 WP.No. 5977 of 2017
does not matter at all, and all that has to be seen is whether
even though no notice was given a reasonable opportunity
of being heard was given.”
Admittedly, in the case at hand, no opportunity of personal
hearing was afforded to the appellant/petitioner and the reviewing
authority, after taking into consideration only the reply to show cause
notice passed the order, which when tested on the anvil of Clause 4 of
MP Police Regulation 270 and the decision in Fazal Bhai Dhala
(Supra) cannot be given the stamp of approval.
In view whereof, the impugned judgment cannot be given a
stamp of approval. Consequently the same is set aside. The order dated
07.06.2013 passed by the Reviewing Authority without affording any
opportunity of personal hearing is also set aside.”
7. The main question for consideration in this petition is as to whether it is
incumbent upon the reviewing authority/appellate authority to afford an
opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner?
8. Evident it is from Clause 4 of Regulation 270 of MP Police Regulation that
the reviewing authority/Appellate Authority may for reason to be recorded in
writing exonerate or may remit, vary or enhance the punishment imposed or may
order a fresh enquiry of the taking of further evidence in the case. It is further
provided that the reviewing/Appellate Authority shall not vary or reverse any
order unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity
given to them for being heard.
9. Thus, it is clear that any order which is to be passed in suo motu review
should be passed only after affording an opportunity and after giving hearing. A
similar question came up for consideration in the case of Fazal Bhai Dhala Vs.
The Custodian-General, Evacuee Property, New Delhi and another and The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/10/2026
7:22:44 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11098
9 WP.No. 5977 of 2017
Custodian Evacuee Property, Madras AIR 1961 SC 1397, wherein it is held
that :
“The proviso secures the requirements of the principles of natural
justice when it says that any order prejudicial to any person shall not
be passed without giving such person a reasonable opportunity of
being heard. No specific provision for service of notice in order that
such a reasonable opportunity of being heard be given has however
been made by any rule. It goes without saying that in the large
majority of cases, the Custodian “will, in order to give the party
concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard, first give him a
notice of his intention to examine the records to satisfy himself as to
the legality or the propriety of any order passed by the subordinate
officer and require such person to show cause if any why the order
should not be revised or modified, and then if and when the party
appears before him in response to the notice, the Custodian has also to
allow him, either personally or through counsel, a reasonable
opportunity of being heard. In suitable cases it may be proper and
necessary for the Custodian to allow the party concerned even to
adduce evidence. There may be cases however where the party
concerned is already before the Custodian, so that all that is necessary
for the Custodian to do is to inform such party of his intention to
examine the records to satisfy himself whether a particular order
should be revised, and then to give him a reasonable opportunity of
being heard. There would be no necessity in such a case to serve a
formal notice on the party who is already before the Custodian and the
omission to serve the notice can be of no consequence. What the law
requires is that the person concerned should be given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard before any order prejudicial to him is made
in revision. If this reasonable opportunity of being heard cannot be
given without the service of the notice the omission to serve the notice
would be fatal; where however proper hearing can be given without
service of notice, it does not matter at all, and all that has to be seen is
whether even though no notice was given a reasonable opportunity of
being heard was given.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/10/2026
7:22:44 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11098
10 WP.No. 5977 of 2017
10. Admittedly, in the case at hand, the impugned order has been passed by the
reviewing authority without extending opportunity of being heard to petitioner
and even without issuing a show-cause notice to her which when tested on the
anvil of Clause 4 of MP Police Regulation 270 and the decision in Fazal Bhai
Dhala (Supra) cannot be given the stamp of approval.
11. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 30.01.2015 (Annexure P/1)
passed by DIG, Gwalior Range, order dated 06.10.2015 (Annexure P/2) passed
by Inspector General of Police, Gwalior zone and order dated 19.02.2016 passed
by Director General of Police, Bhopal are hereby set aside. The respondents are
directed to extend the consequential benefits to petitioner within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. As petitioner has
already stood retired on 31.07.2017, therefore, no liberty is granted to the
respondents to proceed against petitioner.
12. The petition, accordingly, stands allowed and disposed of.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN
DHARKAR
Signing time: 4/10/2026
7:22:44 PM
