Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kamal Kumar Bhargava vs State Of M.P. on 9 April, 2026
1 WP-3640-2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 9th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 3640 of 2009
KAMAL KUMAR BHARGAVA
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arun Katare - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Monika Mishra - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following relief(s):
"It is therefore most humbly prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed with costs by issuance of a Writ, Order or direction to the respondents quashing the order (Annexure P-1) dated 22.04.2009 and the order Annexure P-2 dated 24/30.07.2009 passed by respondent No. 3 and the petitioner may kindly be directed to be continued/reinstated in service with all consequential monetary benefits and seniority Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM
2 WP-3640-2009 and further any other relief in favour the petitioner and against the respondents which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, kindly be awarded.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on 24.05.1977 and promoted on the post of Head Constable on 09.02.1988. On 25.07.2008 the petitioner was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Bamhari Tehsil and District Shivpuri and a preliminary enquiry was conducted and thereafter charge-sheet dated 09.09.2008 has been issued to the petitioner and thereafter Inquiry Officer has been appointed and submitted that Presenting Officer has not been appointed and Inquiry Officer has cross-examined the petitioner vide Annexure P-9 and asked 22 questions from the petitioner and submitted that Inquiry Officer has acted as Presenting Officer and he has not acted as a Judge and thereafter Inquiry Officer has submitted the enquiry report and the Inquiry Officer has given his finding that the petitioner did not charge Rs.1500/- and Rs.500/-, but the remaining charges No.1 and 2 said to have been proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority has supplied copy of enquiry report. Petitioner has submitted the reply to the enquiry report and thereafter Superintendent of Police has issued punishment order, by which, one annual increment has been withheld with cumulative effect for a period of one year. Against the aforesaid, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the DIG, Gwalior and without considering the statutory appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner without giving any personal Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM 3 WP-3640-2009 opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and DIG Gwalior has issued a show cause notice dated 19.06.2009 (Annexure P-13) and thereafter petitioner has submitted the reply to the show cause notice and thereafter the DIG, Gwalior has not granted personal opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and by non-speaking and unreasoned order, he has recalled/cancel the punishment order dated 22.04.2009 and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 30.07.2009 (Annexure P/2), DIG, Gwalior only issued the show cause notice and passed the impugned order by enhancing the punishment which comes under the purview of major penalty. 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., 2007 (1) MPLJ 95. He also relied upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Sant Lal Vs. State of MP and ors. decided on 30.10.2017 in W.A.No.404/2017.
4. Per contra, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned order and opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that DIG is competent to review or modify the punishment order passed by Disciplinary Authority as per Regulation 270 (1) of the Police Regulation.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM4 WP-3640-2009
6. Admittedly, before issuing the impugned order, no personal opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner; only a show cause notice had 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 Police Regulation 270(1) The relevant provisions of Para 270 is reproduced, as under:
"270 [(1) Every order of punishment of 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 purposes 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 Regulations 266, 267, 268 and 271 shall, as nearly as may be, apply to an application for revision.
[(4) The revising authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing exonerated or may remit, vary or enhance the punishment imposed or any order a fresh enquiry or 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 an opportunity given to them for being heard."
7. The judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Sant Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM 5 WP-3640-2009 Lal Vs. State of MP and ors. decided on 30.10.2017 in W.A.No.404/2017 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM
6 WP-3640-2009 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 was 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM 7 WP-3640-2009 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM
8 WP-3640-2009 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 him,self 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."
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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM 9 WP-3640-2009 (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."
8. The main question for consideration in this petition is that whether it is incumbent upon the reviewing authority/appellate authority to afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, after issuing show cause notice.
9. Evident it is from Clause 4 of Regulation 270 of MP Police Regulation that the revising 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.
10. 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM 10 WP-3640-2009 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: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM
11 WP-3640-2009
11. Admittedly, in the case at hand, no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the 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. Even otherwise, in the present case, Presenting Officer has not been appointed and the Disciplinary Authority and Inquiry Officer has acted as a Presenting Officer and cross-examined the witnesses, namely, Devendra Sharma and also cross-examined the petitioner and asked near about 22 questions from the petitioner.
12. The Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma reported in (2018) 7 SCC 670 has held as under:-
"31. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court speaking through Justice R.V. Raveendran, CJ (as he then was) had occasion to consider the question of vitiation of the inquiry when the Inquiry Officer starts himself acting as prosecutor in Union of India and ors. vs. Mohd. Naseem Siddiqui, ILR (2004) MP 821. In the above case the Court considered Rule 9(9) (c) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968. The Division Bench while elaborating fundamental principles of natural justice enumerated the seven well recognised facets in paragraph 7 of the judgment which is to the following effect: "7. One of the fundamental principles of natural justice is that no man shall be a judge in his own cause. This principle consists of seven well recognised facets:Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM
12 WP-3640-2009
(i) The adjudicator shall be impartial and free from bias,
(ii) The adjudicator shall not be the prosecutor,
(iii) The complainant shall not be an adjudicator,
(iv) A witness cannot be the Adjudicator,
(v) The Adjudicator must not import his personal knowledge of the facts of the case while inquiring into charges,
(vi) The Adjudicator shall not decide on the dictates of his Superiors or others,
(vii) The Adjudicator shall decide the issue with reference to material on record and not reference to extraneous material or on extraneous considerations. If any one of these fundamental rules is breached, the inquiry will be vitiated."
32. The Division Bench further held that where the Inquiry Officer acts as Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed. In paragraph 9 is as follows:
"9. A domestic inquiry must be held by an unbiased person who is unconnected with the incident so that he can be impartial and objective in deciding the subject matters of inquiry. He should have an open mind till the inquiry is completed and should neither act with bias nor give an impression of bias. Where the Inquiry Officer acts as the Presenting Officer, bias can be presumed. At all events, it clearly gives an impression of bias. An Inquiry Officer is in position of a Judge or Adjudicator. The Presenting Officer is in the position of a Prosecutor. If the Inquiry Officer acts as a Presenting Officer, then it would amount to Judge acting as the prosecutor. When the Inquiry Officer conducts the examination-in- chief of the prosecution witnesses and leads them through the facts so as to present the case Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM 13 WP-3640-2009 of the disciplinary authority against the employee or cross- examines the delinquent employee or his witnesses to establish the case of the employer/disciplinary authority evidently, the Inquiry Officer cannot be said to have an open mind. The very fact that he presents the case of the employer and supports the case of the employer is sufficient to hold that the Inquiry Officer does not have an open mind."
33. The Division Bench after elaborately considering the issue summarised the principles in paragraph 16 which is to the following effect:
"16. We may summarise the principles thus:
(i) The Inquiry Officer, who is in the position of a Judge shall not act as a Presenting Officer, who is in the position of a prosecutor.
(ii) It is not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to appoint a Presenting Officer in each and every inquiry. Non- appointment of a Presenting Officer, by itself will not vitiate the inquiry.
(iii) The Inquiry Officer, with a view to arrive at the truth or to obtain clarifications, can put questions to the prosecution witnesses as also the defence witnesses. In the absence of a Presenting Officer, if the Inquiry Officer puts any questions to the prosecution witnesses to elicit the facts, he should thereafter permit the delinquent employee to crossexamine Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM 14 WP-3640-2009 such witnesses on those clarifications.
(iv) If the Inquiry Officer conducts a regular examination-in-chief by leading the prosecution witnesses through the prosecution case, or puts leading questions to the departmental witnesses pregnant with answers, or cross-examines the defence witnesses or puts suggestive questions to establish the prosecution case employee, the Inquiry Officer acts as prosecutor thereby vitiating the inquiry.
(v) As absence of a Presenting Officer by itself will not vitiate the inquiry and it is recognised that the Inquiry Officer can put questions to any or all witnesses to elicit the truth, the question whether an Inquiry Officer acted as a Presenting Officer, will have to be decided with reference to the manner in which the evidence is let in and recorded in the inquiry.
Whether an Inquiry Officer has merely acted only as an Inquiry Officer or has also acted as a Presenting Officer depends on the facts of each case. To avoid any allegations of bias and running the risk of inquiry being declared as illegal and vitiated, the present trend appears to be to invariably appoint Presenting Officers, except in simple cases. Be that as it may."
34. We fully endorse the principles as enumerated above, Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM 15 WP-3640-2009 however, the principles have to be carefully applied in facts situation of a particular case................................" xxxxx
36. Thus, the question as to whether Inquiry Officer who is supposed to act independently in an inquiry has acted as prosecutor or not is a question of fact which has to be decided on the facts and proceedings of particular case. In the present case we have noticed that the High Court had summoned the entire inquiry proceedings and after perusing the proceedings the High Court came to the conclusion that Inquiry Officer himself led the examination in chief of the prosecution witness by putting questions. The High Court further held that the Inquiry Officer acted himself as prosecutor and Judge in the said disciplinary enquiry. The above conclusion of the High Court has already been noticed from paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment of the High court giving rise to Civil Appeal No.2608 of 2012.
37. The High Court having come to the conclusion that Inquiry Officer has acted as prosecutor also, the capacity of independent adjudicator was lost which adversely affecting his independent role of adjudicator. In the circumstances, the principle of bias shall come into play and the High Court was right in setting aside the dismissal orders by giving liberty to the appellants to proceed with inquiry afresh. We make it clear that our observations as made above are in the facts of the present cases."
13. On perusal of the aforesaid decision, it would clearly reveal that an Inquiry Officer cannot play the role of a Prosecutor and cross- examine the delinquent employee, whereas, in the present case, as already observed, the petitioner has been elaborately cross-examined by the Inquiry Officer, and in such circumstances, the petition Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM 16 WP-3640-2009 deserves to be allowed on this ground only.
14. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the Inquiry Officer himself has acted as a Prosecutor in the case and has cross-examined the witnesses, which is not permissible in law. The aforesaid aspect was considered in the case of Ram Prakash Singh vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P.No.414 of 2002 decided on 16.11.2009 wherein the case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey reported in (2002) 10 SCC 471 was taken note of and it has been held as under :
"In the present case, no Presenting Officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority and the subsequent enquiry officer himself has acted as Presenting Officer, meaning thereby, as a prosecutor. The enquiry officer has handed over the written questionnaire to the witnesses and on the basis of written questionnaire, the enquiry has been concluded in the matter. ....
8. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs K.D. Pandey and another (2002) 10 SCC 471 in paragraph 5 has held as under -
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in this case the Board had examined the material on record and come to the conclusion that four of the six charges could be proved on the available material, which had not been properly examined in the earlier inquiry. In fact from the order made by the Railway Board as well as from that part of the file where the inquiry report made earlier is discussed, it is clear that specific findings have been given in respect of each of the charges after discussing the matter and, if that is so, we fail to understand as to how there could have been a remit to the inquiry authority for further Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM
17 WP-3640-2009 inquiry. Indeed this resulted in second inquiry and not in a further inquiry on the same set of charges and the material on record. If this process is allowed the inquiries can go on perpetually until the view of the inquiry authority is in accord with that of the disciplinary authority and it would be abuse of the process of law. In that view of the matter we think that the order made by the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal is just and proper and, therefore, we decline to interfere with the same. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments, as it is evident in the present case that the enquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor in the subsequent enquiry conducted in the matter and therefore, the same deserves to be and is hereby quashed. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed with the following directions :
(a) The impugned order of compulsory retirement dated 03.11.2001 and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 28.02.2002 are hereby quashed.
(b) The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service forthwith. The respondents are directed to grant the consequential benefits to the petitioner i.e. annual increments, 50% back wages and subsequent promotions, in case any junior has been considered and promoted to the next higher post.
(c) The aforesaid exercise of granting back wages, notional fixation of salary, increments, consequential promotion, if any, shall be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM18 WP-3640-2009
15. The case of the petitioner herein is that the Inquiry Officer has acted as Prosecution Officer as he conducted cross-examination of the petitioner as well as witnesses, which is in violation of the provisions of Clause (c) of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The said issue has already been decided in the cases of Ram Prakash Gaya Prashad v. State of M.P. reported in 2008 (4) MPLJ 35, K.C. Bhargava v. State of M.P. reported in 2012 (4) MPLJ 244 and judgment dated 19.6.2007 passed by this Court in W.P. No.5449/2006 (Abde Kasim Sheikh v. State of M.P.).
16. The similar is the situation in the present case. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable as the Inquiry Officer has acted as a Prosecutor and cross-examined the prosecution witnesses.
17. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed in the aforesaid cases. The counsel appearing for the respondents/State could not dispute the aforesaid fact and fairly submits that the Inquiry Officer himself has acted as a Prosecutor in the matter and conducted the cross-examination of the witnesses, which is not permissible.
18. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 30/07/2009 (Annexure P/2) passed by DIG, Gwalior Range, Gwalior, order dated 22.04.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to extend the consequential benefits to the petitioner and also directed to issue Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM 19 WP-3640-2009 revised PPO and GPO and rest of pension within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. As the petitioner has already been retired on 31.05.2014, therefore, no liberty shall be granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner.
19. The petition, accordingly, stands allowed.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT) JUDGE Abhi Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 4/10/2026 6:36:47 AM