Petitioner, a police constable, challenged disciplinary and appellate orders imposing stoppage of increment punishment. Court held Regulation 214 does not authorize such penalty, declaring orders bad in law.
Disciplinary order dated 16.03.2011 and appellate order dated 07.10.2011 set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 / 4
2024:CGHC:30608
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2578 of 2014
Kamlesh Verma S/o Shri I.P. Verma Aged About 32 Years Working As Head Constable, Police Line Rajnandgaon, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Dongargarh, Tahsil Dongargar, P.S. Dongargarh, Civil And Revenue Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G., Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors S/o Through The Secretary Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh
2. The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter Raipur C.G.
3. The Inspector General Of Police Durg Range 32 Banglo, Bhilai Distt. Durg C.G.
4. The Superintendent Of Police Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G.
... Respondents
| For Petitioner | : | Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent | : | Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P. L. |
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Judgment On Board
13/08/2024
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the appellate order dated 07.10.2011 as well as the punishment order dated 16.03.2011, in the interest of justice.
(iii) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct respondents to accord all consequential benefits including refund of amount withheld on this account.
(iv) To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in facts circumstances of the case.
2 / 4
2. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner was posted as a Constable at the relevant time. A penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed on 16.03.2011 by the Inspector General, Durg Range i.e. respondent No. 3. The allegation against petitioner and one Murlidhar Tiwari (ASI) was that two accused persons escaped from their custody while being escorted to the Police Station. Thereafter, an article of charges was issued by Superintendent Of Police, Rajnandgaon i.e. respondent No. 4 against the petitioner on 09.08.2010 and a departmental inquiry was conducted against him and then punishment was imposed by respondent No. 3 on 16.03.2011. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the order passed by the disciplinary authority was affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 07.10.2011.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a circular issued by the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh dated 10.10.2008 wherein it is held that there is no provision under Regulation 214 of the CG. Police Regulations with regard to the imposition of punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. He also submits that according to Regulation 221, police officers cannot be inflicted with such punishment and those orders have been quashed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in many petitions. He stated that the order dated 16.03.2011 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes. She submits that departmental inquiry was conducted and sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and thereafter, taking into consideration the nature of the allegation against the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed. She also submits that
3 / 4
there is a concurrent finding recorded against the petitioner by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. She stated that this petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
6. Regulation 214 of the C.G. Police Regulations reads as under:-
"214. Punishment kinds of: Without prejudice to the provisions of any law 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
(i) **** (ii) ****
(iii) Reduction to a lower post or time scale or reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specific period with further direction as to whether or 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." **** **** ***
From a bare perusal of Regulation 214 of Police Regulations it is apparent that there is no provision to inflict the punishment of stoppage of one or two increments upon any police official of the police services, meaning thereby such punishment cannot be imposed. The circular dated 10.10.2008 also makes it clear that the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect cannot be imposed as there is no such provision under Regulation 214.
7. In the present case, even in the absence of any provision to inflict the punishment of stoppage of one increment, the disciplinary authority has inflicted such punishment and the appellate authority has also affirmed the same.
8. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts and the material
4 / 4
available on record, in the opinion of this Court, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority committed an error of law in passing the orders, therefore the orders dated 16.03.2011 and 07.10.2011, respectively, are hereby set aside. Consequences to follow.
9. Accordingly,the instant petition stands allowed .
Sd/-
Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE
Ajinkya
3 issues framed by the court
Whether punishment of stoppage of increments can be imposed under Regulation 214 of C.G. Police Regulations.
Whether the appellate authority had jurisdiction to affirm punishment lacking legal basis.
Whether the impugned disciplinary and appellate orders require to be set aside.
Kamlesh Verma
State Of Chhattisgarh
Rakesh Mohan Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
