Full Judgment
V. M. Sahai, J.
1. The petitioner was a constable and a censure entry was awarded to him by respondent No. 3 by order dated 31.8.1996.Against the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No. 2 by his order dated 5.11.1986. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision before respondent No. 1 under Rule 23 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. In the revision, the respondent No. 1 by his order dated 7.1.1997 directed the respondent No. 3 to initiate enquiry proceedings against the petitioner for awarding major punishment.
2. Aggrieved against the order dated 7.1.1997, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The contention of the petitioner's counsel Sri Shashi Nandan is that in paragraph 20 of the writ petition, a categorical statement has been made that the impugned order dated 7.11.1997 was passed by respondent No. 1 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner whereas in case the respondent No. 1 wanted to change the penalty from minor to major, an opportunity of hearing was liable to be given by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner, which was not done. Paragraph 20 of the writ petition has been replied in paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit wherein the respondents have not disputed that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated 7.1.1997, Therefore, the order dated 7.1.1997 was contrary to the principles of natural justice and cannot be upheld.
3. The other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the Rules, the revision lies to respondent No. 1 and as provided by Rule 24, the enhancement of punishment can only be considered by a higher authority than respondent No. 1 who was hearing the revision. Rule 24 of the aforesaid Rules is being quoted below :
'Enhancement of punishment--A punishment may be enhanced by:
(a) an appellate authority on appeal ; or
(b) any authority superior to the authority to whom an application will lie, in exercise of revisionarypowers :
Provided that before enhancing the punishment such authority shall call upon the officer punished, to show cause why his punishment should not be so enhanced, and that an order by such authority so enhancing a punishment shall, be deemed to be an original order of punishment.'
4. A bare perusal of the above rule shows that enhancement of punishment can be made by the appellate authority or by an authority who is superior to the authority to whom a revision lies. In the present case, decision to enhance the punishment from minor to major punishment has been taken by revising authority and he directed the punishing authority to give notice of enhancement to petitioner and to proceed with the enquiry. The revising authority had no power or jurisdiction to direct the punishing authority to enhance the punishment from minor to major. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 7.1.1997, is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and Is liable to be quashed.
5. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 7.1.1997 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), is hereby quashed.
6. There shall be no order as to costs.