1 2025:CGHC:43278 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2368 of 2023 Dharmendra Singh Tomar S/o Shri Abhay Raj Singh Tomar, Aged About 48 Years, Constable At 8th Battalion Pendri, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarter, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police (D I G P) Chhattisgarh Arms Force ( C A F), Police Head Quarter, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Commandant 8th Battalion Chhattisgarh Arms Force (C A F), Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 26.08.2025 1 The instant writ petition is preferred by the petitioner with the following relief(s):- YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.30 16:30:22 +0530 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No. 2. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 31.01.2019 (Annexure P/4) and order dated 13.01.2020 Annexure P/6) whereby the order of stoppage of one increment in pay scale with cumulatively effect has been passed against the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide all consequential benefits to the petitioner. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2 Brief facts of the case, are that the petitioner, while working as Constable No. 443 in 8th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Rajnandgaon, was served with a charge-sheet alleging three charges, namely: (i) unauthorised absence from duty for the period 07.08.2016 to 24.11.2016, (ii) further absence from 26.11.2016 to 10.02.2017 despite directions to join duty, and (iii) publication of false news in a newspaper against superior officers, amounting to grave indiscipline. Pursuant to a departmental enquiry, the petitioner was imposed with the major penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 31.01.2019. The 3 appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by respondent No.3 on 13.01.2020, and the mercy appeal before respondent No.2 was also rejected on 26.10.2022. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in an ex parte manner without due consideration of his defence, documents, and witnesses. The petitioner asserts that after joining duty on 26.11.2016 he became unconscious during parade, was hospitalised, and subsequently referred to District Hospital, Rajnandgaon. Despite knowledge of this fact, the authorities treated him as unauthorisedly absent. The petitioner contends that the disciplinary as well as appellate authorities failed to appreciate these facts and rejected his appeals mechanically, thereby resulting in imposition of the impugned major penalty. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 26.10.2022 is wholly illegal, arbitrary and malafide, having been passed without due appreciation of the grounds raised by the petitioner either during the departmental enquiry or at the appellate stage. It is urged that the petitioner was never unauthorisedly absent, as alleged. In fact, after joining duty on 26.11.2016, the petitioner became unconscious during parade and was admitted to District Hospital, Rajnandgaon. Despite being aware of the petitioner’s hospitalization, the authorities wrongly treated him as an absentee. The subsequent action of framing charges and initiating departmental proceedings was not only unjustified but also a retaliatory measure on account of a news 4 item published in the newspaper against the Battalion Officer, in which the petitioner was falsely implicated. Learned counsel would contend that the departmental enquiry was concluded in an ex parte manner without proper consideration of the documents and explanations submitted by the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer failed to appreciate the petitioner’s defence and proceeded mechanically, resulting in imposition of a major penalty. It is further submitted that even at the appellate stage, the petitioner raised specific grounds pointing out the procedural infirmities, the fact of hospitalization, and disproportionality of the punishment, yet the appellate authority dismissed the appeal without assigning any cogent reasons. The statutory appeal of the petitioner was thus rejected in a cursory and mechanical manner, which itself vitiates the impugned order. Learned counsel would further submit that the order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the Commandant, 8th Battalion (CAF), imposing a major penalty of stoppage of one increment in the pay scale with cumulative effect for the entire service, is contrary to Rule 10(v) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’). The said order was confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 13.01.2020 and further upheld in the mercy appeal vide order dated 26.10.2022. It is contended that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed because, as per the CCA Rules, the competent authority can impose the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay only for a 5 specified period with further directions. However, in the present case, no such time limit was prescribed by the disciplinary authority, and the appellate authorities also failed to consider the aforesaid provisions of the CCA Rules. 4 On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the impugned order dated 26.10.2022 has been passed strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for long periods despite directions to join duty, which amounts to grave misconduct in a disciplined force. The plea of hospitalization is an afterthought and was not supported by credible evidence before the enquiry officer. The departmental enquiry was conducted fairly, and both the disciplinary and appellate authorities considered the petitioner’s case before imposing the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, which is neither harsh nor disproportionate. Hence, the writ petition deserves dismissal. 5 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 6 At this stage, it would be relevant to quote Rule 10(v) of the CCA Rules, which is reproduced below for easy reference :- “10. Penalties- * * * * * * Major Penalties- 6 (v) reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the Government servant 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 future increments of his pay or stagnation allowance; 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 Government servant on account of stagnation allowance, if any].” 7 From a perusal of Rule 10, sub-rule (v) of the CCA Rules, it is specifically clear that the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay can only be imposed for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the Government servant shall earn increments of pay or stagnation allowance during the said period, and also whether, upon expiry of the said period, such reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing his future increments or stagnation allowance. The Note appended thereto further clarifies that 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 Government servant on account of stagnation allowance, if any. 7 8 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on careful consideration of the material placed on record, this Court finds substantial force in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. The record reveals that the petitioner had joined his duties on 26.11.2016 and, on the very same day, became unconscious during parade and was admitted to District Hospital, Rajnandgaon. Despite being aware of the fact of hospitalization, the authorities proceeded to treat the petitioner as unauthorisedly absent and, on that premise, initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. 9 The disciplinary enquiry so conducted also does not inspire confidence. The petitioner had specifically submitted his explanation together with supporting documents regarding his illness and hospitalization. However, the Inquiry Officer, without properly appreciating the defence, proceeded in a mechanical manner and recorded a finding adverse to the petitioner. The conclusion arrived at in the enquiry appears to be perfunctory and suffers from non-application of mind, which goes to the root of the matter. 10 Even at the appellate stage, the petitioner categorically raised the plea of hospitalization, procedural infirmities in the enquiry, and disproportionality of the punishment. The appellate authority, however, rejected the appeal by a cryptic order dated 13.01.2020, without dealing with any of the grounds urged. The 8 revisional/mercy authority also committed the same error while affirming the punishment by order dated 26.10.2022. Such a casual and mechanical rejection of statutory appeals not only reflects non-application of mind but also vitiates the entire process. 11 Most importantly, this Court finds that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 31.01.2019 is contrary to the mandate of Rule 10(v) of the CCA Rules. The said provision empowers the disciplinary authority to impose the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay only for a specified period, with clear directions as to whether increments/stagnation allowance will be admissible during the said period, and whether such reduction would have an impact on future increments. The object of the Rule is to ensure that the punishment remains within the framework of proportionality and does not result in indefinite or permanent penal consequences. 12 In the present case, the disciplinary authority directed stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect for the entire service of the petitioner, without prescribing any specified period as contemplated under Rule 10(v) of the CCA Rules. Such a punishment, in effect, amounts to permanent reduction in pay, which is impermissible in law. The appellate and revisional authorities, instead of correcting the error, mechanically affirmed the same. Thus, the impugned orders suffer from patent illegality and are liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 9 13 Apart from the illegality under Rule 10(v) of the CCA Rules, this Court is also of the opinion that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is wholly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. In a disciplined force, unauthorized absence may be viewed seriously, but in the present case, the petitioner’s absence was duly explained on medical grounds and supported by contemporaneous hospitalization records. In such circumstances, the imposition of a major penalty of permanent reduction in pay is shockingly disproportionate and cannot be sustained in law. 14 It is evident that in the present case, prima facie the impugned order dated 31.01.2019 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the major penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner, is contrary to Rule 10(v) of the CCA Rules. The said infirmity has not been considered either by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.01.2020 (Annexure P/6) or even while deciding the mercy appeal vide order dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure P/1). 15 Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of Rule 10(v) of the CCA Rules, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 31.01.2019 (Annexure P/4), the appellate order dated 13.01.2020 (Annexure P/6), and the order dated 26.10.2022 (Annexure P/1) are hereby quashed and set aside. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order, after affording due opportunity of 10 hearing to the petitioner and by considering the provisions of Rule 10(v) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, on its own merits and in accordance with law. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh