P.K.Chatterji, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 20-12-1985 passed by U.P. State Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred as Tribunal).
(2.) THE petitioner joined the Police Force as Sub-Inspector on 8-12-1948 and was confirmed on 15-2- 1952. Proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act were started against the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his reply and after evidence from both the sides, the trying officer recommended the dismissal of the petitioner vide his report dated 5-10-1963 and consequent there upon a show-cause notice was issued to petitioner on 27-12-1963. THE punishing authority vide his order dated 14-4-1964 reduced the rank of the petitioner to the lowest scale of Sub-Inspector for three years. THE petitioner being aggrieved by the order of Punishing Authority preferred an appeal to the Inspector General of Police who in turn issued a show-cause notice on 11-3-1966 for enhancing the punishment inflicted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. A reply was submitted by the petitioner to the said notice on 12- 6-1966. THE Inspector General of Police by his order dated 8-8-1966 dismissed the petitioner from service and the petitioner submitted a appeal to the Government on 17-11-1966 which too was rejected on 19-8-1975 and the order of rejection was communicated to the petitioner on 1-4-1976. THEreafter the petitioner preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal and the same was dismissed vide order dated 20-12-1985. Being aggrieved against the order of dismissal of claim petition by the Tribunal the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
(3.) IT has been argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had withdrawn the appeal under Regulation 508 of the Police Regulation and therefore, the provision of Regulation 511 of the Police Regulation should have been strictly applied. The learned Tribunal in this regard has observed that show-cause notice could not have been issued during the pendency of appeal. The papers filed as additional written statement which were the letters of the petitioner dated 19-10-1965 and 1-2-1966 made it clear that he did not press the appeal further. The learned Tribunal also held that mere absence of specific order rejecting the appeal before issue of show-cause notice for enhancement of the punishment would not vitiate the notice. IT is also note-worthy that once the competent authority has decided to proceed with the issue of show-cause notice for enhancement of punishment, the appeal filed by the petitioner become infructuous as in case the appeal continue to exist there was no question of giving him opportunity to show-cause notice. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon M.D. Maharashtra Cotton Growers Market Federation Ltd. v. Chougle Popatrao Annasaheb and Anr., reported in (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases page 247, where in their Lordships of Supreme Court have held that, "once the delinquent officer has withdrawn the appeal, there was no valid reason for the Appellate Authority to have proceeded with the appeal. Besides that there is no suo motu or any other power under Rule 53 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules with the Appellate Authority to enhance the punishment". The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Regulation 511 of the Police Regulations deals with revision which is reproduced below: "511 (a) The power of revision, may in the case of all orders against which an appeal would lie under Regulation (508) (1) be exercised suo motu by any authority to whom the appeal would lie. (b) Without prejudice to the provisions of clause (a), the Inspector General of Police may revised an order of a subordinate authority in non-appealable cases and also in cases of acquittal. (c) No record of a case decided by a subordinate servant shall ordinarily be called for after six months from the date of the order sought to be revised. (d) No order adversely affecting to Government servant shall be passed, in exercise of revisionary powers, ordinarily after six months from the date of receipt of records except for very special reason to be recorded in writing. (e) No authority shall suo motu exercise the power of revision in any case more than once." Regulation 513 deals with enhancement of the punishment. It reads as under : "513. A punishment may be enhanced by - (a) an appellate authority on appeal; or (b) any authority superior to the authority to whom an appeal would lie, in exercise of revisionary powers: Provided, in either case, that before enhancing a punishment, the competent authority shall call upon the officer punished to show-cause why his punishment should not be so enhanced, and that an order of an appellate authority so enhancing a punishment shall, for the purpose of appeal, be deemed to be an original order of punishment.";