1 - Mohan Lal Patel S/o Late Bisahu Ram Patel, Aged About 62 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, New
Case Details
1 Writ Petition (S) No.6060 of 2017 2025:CGHC:15140 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6060 of 2017 1 - Mohan Lal Patel S/o Late Bisahu Ram Patel, Aged About 62 Years R/o 188/1, Hari Nagar, Ward No. 59, Near Jay Public School, Katulbod, Durg Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarters, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police, Range Durg, 32 Bunglow, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police Chhawni Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer 2 Writ Petition (S) No.6060 of 2017 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 28.03.2025 1. The short question involved in this writ petition is whether the Inspector General of Police is empowered by Regulation 223 read with Regulation 214 of Chhattisgarh Police Regulation (in short ‘The Regulations’) to impose a penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. 2. The aforesaid question has arisen for consideration on the following factual backdrop; 2.1. The petitioner herein, when he was posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector in police station Kurud was subjected to regular departmental proceedings vide charge- sheet dated 20.07.2012 (Annexure P/9). After the regular departmental proceedings, the disciplinary authority (Inspector General of Police) inflicted the penalty of ‘stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect on future increments and pensions etc.’ vide order dated 28.12.2013 by exercising its power conferred under Regulation 223(c) read with Regulation 214(ii) of the Regulations, against which the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Director General of Police which was dismissed vide order 3 Writ Petition (S) No.6060 of 2017 dated 05.03.2015 and thereafter the revision was preferred against the appellate order under Regulation 270 of the Regulations has also suffered the same fate vide order dated 09.09.2015 passed by the Director General of Police. In the meanwhile, the petitioner retired from his services in the year of 2017. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the order of disciplinary authority inflicting the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by virtue of Regulation 223(c) read with Regulation 214(ii) of the Regulations, the Inspector General of Police is not authorised to impose the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. To buttress his submission, he relied upon the order passed by this Court in the case of M.L. Patel Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others 1 bearing Writ Petition (S) No.37 of 2012 . He would further relied upon the circular dated 10.10.2008 issued by the Director General of Police in support of his submissions. 1 2021 : CGHC : 26513 4 Writ Petition (S) No.6060 of 2017 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that order impugned is well-merited and no interference is required under Sections 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. 5. I have heard both the parties, perused the documents available on record and considering the rival submissions with utmost circumspection. 6. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings for his misconduct resulting to penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect on future increments and pensions etc. vide order dated 28.12.2013 passed by the disciplinary authority (Inspector General of Police) exercising its power conferred under Regulation 223(c) read with Regulation 214(ii) of the Regulations against which the petitioner was preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Director General of Police by affirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority and thereafter the revision was preferred against the appellate order which has also dismissed. 5 Writ Petition (S) No.6060 of 2017 7. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Regulation 223 of the Regulations which provides the power to the Zonal Inspector General of Police or any Police officer equivalent to the rank of Inspector general of Police by which he can impose punishment, states as under:- “[223. Power of the Zonal Inspector of Police or any Police officer equivalent to the rank of Inspector general of Police. - The Zonal Inspector General of Police or any Police officer equivalent to the rank of Inspector General of Police to exercising the following powers:- (a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) Power to inflict on all ranks from Constables to Inspector any of the penalties specified in Regulation 214 & 215.]” 8. The punishments to be imposed to the Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors has been defined in Regulation 214 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations which states as under :- “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:- 6 Writ Petition (S) No.6060 of 2017 (i) xxxxx (ii) Withholding of increments of pay including stoppage at an efficiency bar or stagnation allowance;” 9. Regulation 214 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations prescribes various minor/major punishments which can be imposed without prejudice to the provisions of any law or any special order for the time being in force. 10. On perusal of the aforesaid provisions, by virtue of Regulation 223(c) of the Regulations, the Inspector General of Police has power to inflict on all ranks from Constables to Inspector any of the penalties specified in Regulation 214 and 215. The Regulation 214(ii) of the Regulations empowers the Inspector General of Police to withholding of increments of pay including stoppage at an efficiency bar or stagnation allowance. However, a careful perusal of the said Regulation would show that no power has been conferred with the Inspector General of Police to inflict a punishment of withholding an increment with cumulative effect, which is also apparent from the memo dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure P/4) issued by the Director General of Police, which states as under:- 7 Writ Petition (S) No.6060 of 2017 पुलि(cid:4)स मुख्या(cid:4)य, छ्ቈीसगढ़ सिसवि(cid:17)(cid:4) (cid:4)ाईन्स, रायपुर 492001 पुलि(cid:4)स वि(cid:21)ቖኔ(cid:23)श क 0-04 ्ቅमांक-पुम/्ቚशा/वि(cid:17)जांच/1273/08 रायपुर, विቖኔ(cid:21)ांक 10/10/2008 ्ቚति , समस् पुलि(cid:4)स इकाईयों छ्ቈीसगढ़ वि(cid:17)षय- (cid:17)े (cid:21)(cid:17)ृति’ संचयी रूप से रोक(cid:21)े का वि(cid:21)यम वि(cid:17)रू’ आቖኔेश जारी (cid:21) कर(cid:21)े बाब ्। कई ्ቚकरणों में अ(cid:21)ुशासवि(cid:21)क अति1कारिरयों ्ቛारा वि(cid:17)भागीय जांच में आरोप ्ቚमाणिण पाए जा(cid:21)े पर अपचारी पुलि(cid:4)स अति1कारिरयों के वि(cid:17)रू’ " एक (cid:17)े (cid:21)(cid:17)ृति’ संचसी रूप से रोक(cid:21)े का ቖኔंड" या " एक (cid:17)े (cid:21)(cid:17)ृति’ एक (cid:17)ष8 के लि(cid:4)ए रोके जा(cid:21)े का ቖኔंड सिजसका ्ቚभा(cid:17) संचयी होगा" अति1रोविप विकए गये है, जो वि(cid:21)यमा(cid:21)ुकू (cid:4) (cid:21)हीं है। कृ पया इस संबं1 में छ्ቈीसगढ़ पुलि(cid:4)स रेग्यू० के पैरा 214 का अ(cid:17)(cid:4)ोक(cid:21) हो सिजसमें इस ्ቚकार के ቖኔंड का ्ቚा(cid:17)1ा(cid:21) (cid:21)हीं है। चू ँविक पुलि(cid:4)स रेग्यू० के पैरा 221 के अं ग8 पुलि(cid:4)स अ1ी्ቌक को इस ्ቚकार का ቖኔंड अति1रोविप कर(cid:21)े का अति1कार (cid:21)हीं है, इस कारण मा(cid:21)(cid:21)ीय छ्ቈीसगढ़ उ्ሴ न्याया(cid:4)य ्ቛारा कई बार इस ्ቚकार के ቖኔंडाቖኔेश अपास् विकए गए है। इस संबं1 में मा(cid:21)(cid:21)ीय उ्ሴ म न्याया(cid:4)य ्ቛारा भी म०्ቚ० शास(cid:21) ए(cid:17)ं अन्य वि(cid:17)रु’ राति1का ्ቚसाቖኔ ቖኔुबे ( विቖኔ(cid:21)ांक 25 अ्ቚै(cid:4) 1994) में उपरो्ሹा(cid:21)ुसार ቖኔण्डाቖኔेश अपास् विकया गया है। अ ः भवि(cid:17)ष्य में अ(cid:21)ुशासवि(cid:21)क अति1कारी उपरो्ሹ वि(cid:21)यमों के अ(cid:21)ुरूप काय8(cid:17)ाही कर(cid:21)ा सुवि(cid:21)तिH करें। सही/- (वि(cid:17)्ቫरंज(cid:21)) पुलि(cid:4)स महावि(cid:21)ቖኔेशक 11. As such, it is quite evident that the Inspector General of Police has no power and jurisdiction to impose a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect on future increments and pensions etc. Accordingly the impugned order dated 23.12.2013 (Annexure P/1) as well as appellate order dated 05.03.2015 (Annexure P/2) 8 Writ Petition (S) No.6060 of 2017 and the revisional order dated 09.09.2015 (Annexure P/12) are liable to be and are hereby set aside. The penalty so imposed is modified and it is directed that the petitioner is imposed a penalty of stoppage of one increment with non- cumulative effect.
Decision
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. Since the petitioner has already retired from his services, he will be entitled for all consequential benefit, if any, in view of the modification of order of punishment as aforesaid. No order as to cost(s). ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Saxena Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge