M. L. Ajagalle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:33285

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 4114 of 2019

¶6

1 - M. L. Ajagalle S/o Late Shri M.D. Ajagalle Aged About 60 Years By Occupation Sub Inspector, Police Station City Kotwali Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - The Additional Director General Of Police (Administration) Police Head, Quarter Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4 - The D.I.G. (Adminstration) Police Head Quarter, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(Cause title, as taken from CIS)

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Dubey and Mr. Manas Vajpai, Advocates For State/Respondents : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate

¶16

Ms. Rashmeet Kaur Chawla, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarter Bilaspur (CG), present in person.

¶17

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

16/07/2025

¶20

Heard.

¶21

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:-

¶22

2

¶23

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call records for the records pertaining to the case of petitioner for its kind perusal.

¶24

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court pleased to issue writ/writs/direction to consider the case of petitioner for promotion from the year 2005 on the post of Assistant Supt-Inspector to Sub-Inspector.

¶25

10.3 That, to grant any other relief or alter relief seeking as deem fit and just.”

¶26

Facts of the case, as projected by petitioner in nutshell, are that, in the year 2005, the petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste Category, was posted on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. On that year, in the gradation list of 2005, his name was found place on Sr. No.247 and on the basis of that gradation list, eligibility list (Annexure-P/6) for promotion from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector to Sub-Inspector was prepared in the year 2004-05, in which, name of petitioner was not mentioned. Thereafter, Departmental Promotion Committee (for brevity, ‘DPC’) was held and junior to the petitioner namely; Chatur Singh Ladeshwar was promoted. However, the petitioner was not promoted because his name was mentioned in ‘General Category’ in gradation list. Subsequently, it was corrected vide order dated 13.07.2006 (Annexure-P/7) passed by Director General of Police, Raipur, Chhattisgarh {(for short ‘DGP, Raipur (CG)’}. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WP(S) No.5047/2007 (Annexure-P/10), which was disposed of vide order dated 16.04.2013 by this Court directing respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner for his promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector by holding review DPC. Thereafter, review DPC was held, but the petitioner was not granted promotion on the ground

¶27

3

¶28

that, he has been inflicted major penalty in departmental enquiry proceeding, therefore, he is not eligible for promotion. Thereafter, the petitioner filed instant petition seeking relief as has been mentioned in opening paragraph.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed on 21.11.1982 in Police Department in Scheduled Caste Category, but because of mistake committed by the Office of respondents in gradation list, his category was mentioned as ‘General’, therefore, he was deprived of promotion in the year 2006. Subsequently, vide order dated 13.07.2006 (Annexure-P/7) passed by DGP, Raipur (CG), his category was changed in gradation list of the year 2003, 2004 & 2005. He would further submit that in WPS No.5047/2007, it was held by this Court vide order dated 16.04.2013 that, not granting promotion to the petitioner is illegal, thereafter, in compliance of the aforesaid order, review DPC was convened, but the petitioner was again refused to be promoted on the ground that he has been inflicted major penalty, whereas in departmental enquiry, he was inflicted minor penalty, therefore, on the basis of that penalty, petitioner ought not have deprived of promotion. He further submitted that, not promoting petitioner in the year 2005-06 on the post of Sub-Inspector and not granting him subsequent promotion are completely illegal, therefore, he prayed that relief sought for by petitioner may be granted to him.

¶30

State-Respondents have filed reply. Learned State counsel referring to its reply, would submit that, though in gradation list of the year 2003, 2004 & 2005, category of petitioner was mentioned as ‘General’, whereas he belongs to ‘Scheduled Caste Category’, which was

¶31

4

¶32

subsequently rectified in compliance of the order dated 13.07.2006 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the Director General of Police, Raipur (CG). He would further submit that, in departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 12.12.2005, he was inflicted major penalty by reduction of his salary equivalent to one increment for one year with cumulative effect, as such, it was a major penalty as provided in Rule 10 (V) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short “CCA Rules, 1966”). Learned counsel further submitted that, since petitioner was inflicted major penalty and as per Clause (3-A) of the Standard Operating Procedure (for brevity ‘S.O.P.’) of Police Headquarter, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Annexure-R/8), employee inflicted with major penalty will not be eligible for promotion for 5 years, therefore, petitioner was not granted promotion in the year 2005-06. He would further submit that embargo on his promotion in light of aforesaid S.O.P. was effective till 2011 thereafter, fit list was prepared in the year 2012 and name of the petitioner was mentioned in it and, subsequently, in the year 2013, he was granted promotion from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector to Sub-Inspector. He further submitted that because of major penalty inflicted against petitioner, he was not granted promotion in the year 2006 in light of S.O.P., therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get relief sought for by him, hence, this petition is liable to be rejected.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶34

Perusal of gradation list (Annexure-P/3) of the year 2005, fit list (Annexure-P/6) of the year 2004-05 prepared for promotion from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector to Sub-Inspector and order Annexure-

¶35

5

¶36

P/7 dated 13.07.2006 passed by Director General of Police, Raipur (CG) shows that earlier petitioner’s category was wrongly mentioned as ‘General’ instead of ‘SC’, which was subsequently rectified vide order dated 13.07.2006 (Annexure-P/7) passed by DGP, Raipur (CG). So far as not granting promotion to the petitioner in DPC held in the year 2006 is concerned, in pursuance of order dated 16.04.2013 passed by this Court in WP(S) No. 5047/2007, review DPC was convened. Document in this regard has been filed by petitioner vide covering memo, which shows that since petitioner was inflicted major penalty in departmental enquiry held against him in pursuance of order dated 12.12.2005 by imposing penalty of reduction of his salary equivalent to one increment for one year with cumulative effect, therefore, he was not granted promotion. Copy of the order dated 05.07.2006 inflicting aforesaid penalty passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police-cum-Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur annexed with the file also shows that aforesaid penalty was made effective since 01.08.2006. Thus, petitioner was inflicted major penalty of reduction of salary, which falls under Rule 10 (V) of the CCA Rules, 1966. Therefore, contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that penalty inflicted against petitioner was minor penalty is misconceived, hence not sustainable.

¶37

Respondents-State have also filed Standard Operating Procedure (S.O.P.) of Police Headquarter, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Annexure-R/8). Clause (3-A) of the same provides as under:-

¶38

“(3-ए) बड़ी� सजा�:-

¶39

यदि� कि�स� �र्म�चा�री� �� कि�छले� 5 वर्षों� र्म� ��ई बड़ी� सजा� मिर्मले� हो� अथव� स कि!ष्ठा� र्म� स ��हो हो� तो� उस� ��न्नकितो �� अय�ग्य र्म�!� जा�व�गा�। किवभा�गा�य ��न्नकितो

¶40

6

¶41

समिर्मकितो द्वा�री� स कि!ष्ठा� र्म� स ��हो �� रीणों, �� लिलेखि/तो र्म� स्वय �1णों� आ��श "स्पी�किं�6गा आर्ड�री" ��!� हो�गा� तोथ� इस स ब ध र्म� �र्म�चा�रिरीय, �� स�व�भिभाले�/ र्म� उस�� द्वा�री� प्रा�प्तो सजा�ओं �� किववरीणों एव उस�? गा��!�य चारिरीत्रा�वले� �� भा� ध्य�! र्म� री/!� हो�गा� ।"

¶42

Perusal of aforesaid Clause of S.O.P. shows that if any employee was inflicted major penalty, then he will not be considered for promotion for 5 years. In instant case, the petitioner was inflicted major penalty vide order dated 05.07.2006 passed in departmental enquiry and as per provision of aforesaid S.O.P., it was effective till five years i.e. till 2011, therefore, he was not found fit for promotion in the year 2006, as also in review DPC held in compliance of the order passed by this Court in WP(S) No.5047/2007.

¶43