Kailash Chandra Bhat t v. St at e of Ut t arakhand and ot hers

Provided furt her t hat no order t he first proviso t he person shall be m ade except aft er giving effect ed a reasonable opport unit y of being heard in t he m at t er. “ En h a n ce m e n t o f p u n i sh m e n t –A Ru l e 2 4 punishm ent m ay be enhanced by— ( a) an appellat e aut horit y on appeal; or ( b) any aut horit y superior t o t he aut horit y t o whom an applicat ion will lie ,in exercise of revisionary powers: Provided t hat before enhancing t he punishm ent such aut horit y shall call upon t he officer punished, t o show cause why his punishm ent should not be so enhanced, and t hat an order by such aut horit y so enhancing a punishm ent shall be deem ed t o be an original order of punishm ent .” Thus, is evident

3. t he provisions cont ained in t he Punishm ent and Appeal Rules t hat t he Revisional Aut horit y is em powered t o t ake any decision on a revision subm it t ed by an officer. I n t he accordance wit h Punishm ent and Appeal Rules, and in light of t he j udgm ent s passed by t he Hon’ble High Court , Nainit al in sim ilar m at t ers, nam ely Special Appeal t he aforesaid provisions of 4 No. 81/ 08 Sarj eet Singh vs. St at e of U.P. and Ot hers, and Writ Pet it ion No. 274/ SB/ 2002 aj ay Kum ar vs. St at e of Ut t arakhand and Ot hers, a decision was t aken by t he Revisional Aut horit y in t he said revision filed against t he order passed by t he Appellat e Aut horit y dat ed 31- 01- 2014 on t he appeal subm it t ed by t he pet it ioner, Kailash Chandra Bhat t , against t he censure ent ry and punishm ent order issued by t he Senior Superint endent of Police, dat ed 18- 10- 2003, whereby t o init iat e a fresh depart m ent al proceeding against t he pet it ioner.” it was decided

12. The charge was t hat t he pet it ioner had pursued t wo degrees sim ult aneously and successfully com plet ed and awarded degree cert ificat es, and t he ot her part of t he charge is t hat he had not revealed t he det ails of t he case regist ered against him for offences punishable under Sect ions 323 and 504 of I PC, in which he cam e t o be acquit t ed.

13. On t hese t wo grounds, a show cause not ice cam e t o be issued t o t he pet it ioner and t he I nquiry Aut horit y subm it t ed it s report , and t he Disciplinary Aut horit y, t aking not e of t he m isconduct , was pleased t o im pose a punishm ent of censure and a second show cause not ice was issued as t o why t he sam e should not be ent ered int o t he service record of t he pet it ioner.

14. Aggrieved by t he im posit ion of punishm ent of censure, an Appeal cam e t o be preferred, which Appeal m et wit h t he fat e of rej ect ion. Thereaft er, t he revision pet it ion cam e t o be preferred. 5

15. I t is not in disput e t hat t he revision is at t he inst ance of t he pet it ioner and it is not a case of suo m ot o revision. ( em phasis by t his Court ) .

16. A plain reading of t he provisions of Rule 23 of t he Rules leaves no doubt in t he m ind of t he Court t hat an officer, whose Appeal has been rej ect ed, is ent it led t o seek revision of t he order, but while so enabling filing of a revision, t he provision also circum scribes t he power of t he Revisional Aut horit y and enables exercise of revisional powers only in t he event of t here being a flagrant irregularit y result ing m at erial inj ust ice or m iscarriage of j ust ice.

17. I n t he case on hand, a punishm ent cam e t o be im posed. The severit y of t he punishm ent or inadequacy of punishm ent cannot be gone int o by t he Revisional Aut horit y in exercise of t he power under sub- rule ( 1) of Rule 23 of t he Rules. Nevert heless, it is pert inent t o not e t hat t he first proviso enables t he Revisional Aut horit y t o also init iat e suo m ot o revision or revision on it s own m ot ion aft er exam ining t he records of any order in Appeal a g a i n st w h i ch n o r e v i si o n h a s b e e n p r e f e r r e d under t his Rule for t he purpose of sat isfying it self as t o t he legalit y or propriet y of such order or as t o t he regularit y of such procedure and pass such order wit h respect t heret o as it m ay t hink fit . The second proviso t o sub- rule ( 1) of Rule 23 of t he Rules st ipulat es t hat no order 6 under t he first proviso can be passed wit hout affording a reasonable opport unit y of being heard t o t he effect ed person.

18. I n t he case on hand, t here is no disput e t hat it is a revision at t he inst ance of t he affect ed person. The scope of t he first proviso is also not unlim it ed. The Revisional Aut horit y is ent it led t o init iat e a suo m ot o revision only for t he purpose of sat isfying it self as t o t he legalit y or propriet y of t he order or as t o t he regularit y of such procedure adopt ed by t he Appellat e Aut horit y. I n t he case on hand, t he Revisional Aut horit y has t ransgressed t he lim it s im posed by t he proviso it self and it is t his proviso which enables him t o exercise suo m ot o revision.

19. The conclusion drawn by t he Revisional Aut horit y is t hat t he punishm ent im posed is grossly inadequat e. I nadequacy of punishm ent is not a ground upon which t he Revisional Aut horit y could have exercised it s powers on a revision pet it ion preferred under sub- rule ( 1) of Rule 23 of t he Rules.

20. I n t hat view of t he m at t er, t he revision being at t he inst ance of t he appellant and being in com pliance wit h t he provisions of sub- rule ( 1) of Rule 23 of t he Rules, t he Revisional Aut horit y was devoid of any com pet ence t o direct a de novo inquiry on t he ground t hat punishm ent im posed is 7 inadequat e or t hat t he Original Aut horit y and t he Appellat e Aut horit y have shown leniency.

21. The ot her provision, upon which t he reliance is placed, is Rule 24 of t he Rules, which provides ‘Enhancem ent of punishm ent ’.

22. A reading of Rule 24 of t he Rules would dem onst rat e t hat such power is exercisable by t he Appellat e Aut horit y eit her on an ‘Appeal’ under clause ( a) of Rule 24 or by any Aut horit y superior t o t he Aut horit y t o whom an Applicat ion will lie in exercise of revisionary power, i.e. t he Aut horit y which considered t he review pet it ion of t he pet it ioner.

23. I n t he inst ant case, neit her has clause ( a) been invoked in t he form of an Appeal, nor has clause ( b) been invoked by applicat ion t o an Aut horit y higher in hierarchy t o t he Revisional Aut horit y.

24. I n t hat view, t he reliance on Rules 23 and 24 of t he Rules, in our considered view, is highly m isconceived and m isplaced. The fact s of t he case not being in disput e, reliance on Rule 24 of t he Rules appears t o be unfounded.

25. The Depart m ent , having neit her preferred an Appeal under clause ( a) of Rule 24 of t he Rules, nor having preferred an Applicat ion t o an Aut horit y higher t han t he Revisional Aut horit y, nor t he Revisional Aut horit y having exercised it s suo m ot o power of revision, t he decision of t he Revisional 8 Aut horit y t o set aside t he order of t he Disciplinary Aut horit y and t he Appellat e Aut horit y, in our considered opinion, is wholly beyond t he scope of considerat ion of a revision under sub- rule ( 1) of Rule 23 of t he Rules. That apart , it is alm ost m ore t han t wo decades since t he appellant has ent ered service and t he order on t he review pet it ion cam e t o be passed aft er nearly a delay of m ore t han 9 years, which, in our opinion, is fat al t o t he power of t he Disciplinary Aut horit y t o fram e any charge. That apart , t he crim inal case, in which he is alleged t o be arrayed as an accused, is under Sect ion 323 of I PC, which provides for a punishm ent of eit her descript ion or wit h a fine, which m ay ext end t o one t housand rupees.

26. The fact rem ains t hat a punishm ent prescribed under t he Act it self indicat es t hat t he offence is a m inor offence and he has been acquit t ed of t he sam e.

27. As regards t he ot her allegat ion t hat he has pursued t wo degrees sim ult aneously, no m at erial is placed before t his Court t hat eit her or bot h of t he degrees have been cancelled by t he concerned Aut horit ies/ Universit y.

28. I n t hat view of t he m at t er and in view of lack of com pet ence in t he Revisional Aut horit y t o set aside t he punishm ent on a review pet it ion preferred by t he pet it ioner and as t he sam e would am ount t o t he pet it ioner being placed 9 in a worse off posit ion t han he was before he had approached t he Aut horit y, which, in our considered opinion, im perm issible, we are of t he considered opinion t hat t he im pugned proceedings warrant int erference by t his court .

29. I t is also pert inent t o not e t hat B.Ed. course is a day course and law is an evening college course and pursuing t wo degrees sim ult aneously does not in any m anner cont ravene t he provisions of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinat e Ranks ( Punishm ent and Appeal) Rules, 1991, as adapt ed by t he St at e of Ut t arakhand in t he year 2002.

30. I n t hat view, t he Appeal is allowed. The order dat ed

21.03.2018 passed by t he learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 9 of 2013 is set aside. Consequent ly, t he order dat ed

03.09.2012 passed by t he Revisional Aut horit y / respondent No. 2 is also set aside. The order of t he Original Aut horit y, i.e. t he Disciplinary Aut horit y dat ed 18.10.2003 st ands rest ored.

32. There shall be no order as t o cost s. Pending applicat ion, if any, also st ands dism issed. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ G. N A REN DA R, C.J. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 24 t h July, 2025 Rat hour PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR RATHOUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=23699ccc2fd40ad81b6fd13323 779d9e3aeb1097d17dbb53d481cabd25 946eed, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=1F65499E931DF71CDAF9 2A40CC6179B8E010331BA695239171F9 06FD5C45C4E8, cn=PRAVINDRA SINGH RATHOUR 10