Partly allowed

M.L. Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC9 Dec 2021WPS/37/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court held that Regulation 221 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations does not empower a Superintendent of Police to inflict a penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The impugned order was set aside and modified to allow stoppage for only one year.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 26.5.2007 was set aside. The petitioner is to be imposed a penalty of withholding of one increment for a period of one year from the date it falls due.

M.L. Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

AFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (S) No.37 of 2012

¶5

M.L. Patel S/o. Late B.R. Patel, Age-57 Years, Posted as
Sub Inspector at Police Line Dhamtari,Distt.Dhamtari, R/o
Police Line, Durg, Block No.C, Qr.No.12, Durg, Tah. &
Distt.Durg Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Home (Police) Department, D.K.S. Bhavan Raipur, Distt.Raipur

¶9

2. Inspector General of Police Range-Durg, Distt.Durg (CG)

¶10

3. Superintendent of Police, Distt.Durg (CG)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr.Jitendra Pali, Dy.A.G.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board

¶14

09.12.2021

¶15

1. The short question involved in this writ petition is,

¶16

whether respondent No.3/Superintendent of Police, Durg is

¶17

empowered by Regulation 221 of the Chhattisgarh Police
Regulations (hereinafter called as 'Regulations') to
inflict a penalty of stoppage of one increment with
cumulative effect to the petitioner herein.

¶18

2. The aforesaid question has arisen on the following factual

¶19

backdrops:-

¶20

2.1 The petitioner was subjected to regular departmental

¶21

proceedings by the appointing authority i.e.

¶22

Superintendent of Police, Durg and ultimately, by order
dated 26.5.2007 (Annexure P-1), the disciplinary
authority inflicted punishment of stoppage of one
increment with cumulative effect having effect on future

¶23

¶24

increments and pension etc. The said order of punishment
was called in question by the petitioner by preferring
appeal before the appellate authority/Inspector General
of Police, Range Durg. By the order dated 27.8.2008
(Annexure P-2) respondent No.2/Inspector General of
Police has dismissed the appeal affirming the order of
the disciplinary authority, against which, the
petitioner preferred second appeal before respondent
No.1/State Government, which has also been dismissed by
respondent No.1, against which, this writ petition has
been preferred. Writ petition has been preferred mainly
on the ground that in view of Regulation 221 of the
Regulations, the Superintendent of Police has no power
and authority to withhold the increment of Sub-
Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors for a period of
one year from the date on which it falls due, which has
been replied by the respondents denying the averments
made in this writ petition and prayer has been made for
dismissal of writ petition.

¶25

3. Mr.Rajkumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner,
would make a solitary submission that respondent No.3/his
appointing authority has no jurisdiction to impose the
punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative
effect, which has impact on his future increments as well
as on pension in view of the provisions contained in
Regulation 221 of the Regulations and therefore, the
impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

¶26

¶27

4. On the other hand, Mr.Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State, would support the impugned order and submit that the order passed by the disciplinary authority duly affirmed by the appellate authority and the State Government is strictly in accordance with law and no interference is called for and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶29

6. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Sub-Inspector. In a regular departmental enquiry held against him, the Senior Superintendent of Police has inflicted him penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and it has further been directed that it will have the effect on the petitioner's future increments and pension etc. An appeal preferred against that order has suffered the same fate and it has been dismissed and second appeal has also been dismissed, which has been questioned in this writ petition.

¶30

7. The punishment to be imposed to the Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors has been defined in Regulation 214 of the Regulations which states as under:-

¶31

“214. Punishment-Kinds of.-Without prejudice to the
provisions of any law or any special orders for the
time being in force, the following penalties may,
for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed upon
any member holding a post in a Subordinate Police
Service:-

¶32

(i) Withholding of promotion;

¶33

¶34

(ii) Withholding of increments of pay including
stoppage at an efficiency bar or stagnation
allowance;

¶35

(iii) Reduction to a lower pot or time scale or
reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay
for a specified period with further direction as to
whether for not the member of the Subordinate
Police Service will earn increments of pay or the
stagnation allowance, as the case may be, during
the period of such reduction and whether on the
expiry of such period the reduction will or will
not have the effect of postponing the further
increments of his pay or stagnation allowance;

¶36

Note.-The expression “reduction to a lower stage in
the time scale of pay” shall also include reduction
of pay from the stage of pay drawn by a member of
the Subordinate Police Service on account of grant
of stagnation allowance if anything.

¶37

(iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any
pecuniary loss caused to Government or to any fund
maintained for the welfare of the Police by
negligence or breach of orders;

¶38

(v) Removal from the service, which does not
disqualify from future employment;

¶39

(vi) Dismissal from the service, which ordinarily
disqualifies for future employment;
(vii) Suspension is not punishment;

¶40

(viii) Compulsory retirement.”

¶41

8. Regulation 214 of the Regulations prescribes various minor / major punishments which can be imposed without prejudice to the provisions of any law or any special orders for the time being in force.

¶42

9. Regulation 221 of the Regulations provides the power of the

¶43

Superintendent of Police which he can impose which states
as under:-

¶44

“221. Power of S.P.-An Assistant Inspector-General
or a Superintendent exercises the following powers
of punishment:-

¶45

(a) Power to inflict any of the punishment
specified in Regulation 214 it 217 on head
constables and constables.

¶46

(b) Power to inflict on sub-Inspectors and
Assistant Sub-Inspectors, the penalties specified
in Regulation 214(i) and (iv) or in Regulation

¶47

¶48

215(a) and (b) or to withhold the increment of a
sub Inspector and an Assistant Sub Inspector for a
period of one year from the date on which it falls
due.

¶49

(c) Power to reduce the pay of Sub-Inspector and an
Assistant Sub-Inspector.

¶50

(c-1) Power to inflict the punishment of censure on
Inspectors.

¶51

(d) Power to suspend any non-gazetted officer of
police pending inquiry into his conduct.”

¶52

10.A careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions would

¶53

show that by virtue of Regulation 221(1)(b) of the
Regulations, the Superintendent of Police is empowered to
withhold the increment of Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub
Inspectors for a period of one year from the date on which
it falls due. No power has been conferred to the
Superintendent of Police to impose a punishment withholding
the increment of Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-
Inspectors with cumulative effect, which is also clear from
memo dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure P-9) issued by the Director
General of Police, which states as under:-

¶54

iqfyl eq[;ky;] NRrhlx<+ flfoy ykbZUl] jk;iqj 492001

¶55

iqfyl funsZ'k dz0&04

¶56

dzekad&iqeq@iz'kk@fotkap@1273@08 jk;iqj] fnukad 10@10@2008

¶57

izfr]

¶58

leLr iqfyl bdkbZ;kW NRrhlx<+

¶59

fo"k;& osruo`f) lap;h :i ls jksdus dk fu;e fo:) vkns'k tkjh u djus ckcr~A

¶60

dbZ izdj.kksa esa vuq'kklfud vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk foHkkxh; tkap esa vkjksi izekf.kr ik, tkus ij vipkjh iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo:) “ ,d osruof) laplh :i ls jksdus dk naM “;k“ ,d osruof) ,d o"kZ ds fy, jksds tkus dk naM ftldk izHkko lap;h gksxk “ vf/kjksfir fd, x;s gS] tks fu;ekuqdwy ugh gSA d`i;k bl laca/k esa NRrhlx<+ iqfyl jsX;w0 ds iSjk 214 dk voyksdu gks ftlesa bl izdkj ds naM dk izko/kku ugh gSA pwWfd iqfyl jsX;w0 ds iSjk 221 ds varxZr iqfyl v/kh{kd dks bl

¶61

¶62

izdkj dk naM vf/kjksfir djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS] bl dkj.k ekuuh; NRrhlx<+ mPp U;k;ky; }kjk dbZ ckj bl izdkj ds naMkns'k vikLr fd, x, gSA bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh e0iz0 'kklu ,oa vU; fo:) jkf/kdk izlkn nqcs ¼fnukad 25 vizSy 1994½ esa mijksDrkuqlkj n.Mkns'k vikLr fd;k x;k gSA

¶63

vRk% Hkfo"; esa vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh mijksDr fu;eksa ds vuq:i dk;Zokgh djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA

¶64

lgh@& ¼fo'ojatu½ iqfyl egkfuns'kd

¶65

11. As such, it is quite evident that the Superintendent

¶66

of Police has no power and jurisdiction to impose a
punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative
effect. He can impose a penalty of stoppage of one
increment for a period of one year from the date on which
it falls due. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
26.5.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the disciplinary
authority as affirmed by the appellate authority and the
State Government is hereby set-aside. The penalty so
imposed is modified and it is directed that the petitioner
is imposed a penalty of withholding of one increment for a
period of one year from the date on which it falls due.

¶67

12. The writ petition is allowed in part with the aforesaid terms. Since the petitioner has been retired from service, he will be entitled for monetary benefits, if any, in view of modification of order of punishment as aforesaid. No order as to cost(s).

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

 (Sanjay K.Agrawal)

¶70

 Judge

¶71

B/-

M.L. Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.L. Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gangadhar Mahto and Others Vs Coal India Limited and Others

Saurabh Kumar Nirwan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chandan Singh Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Balram Prasad Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Sharda Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Karuna Gaikwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh