1 2025:CGHC:44968 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2441 of 2023 Order reserved on 04.08.2025 Order delivered on 03.09.2025 Krishna Kumar Sahu S/o B. R. Sahu Aged About 49 Years Posted As Assistant Sub Inspector At Police Station Sonkyari, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department pf Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar (New Raipur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director General of Police Raipur, State of Chhattisgarh. 3 - Superintendent of Police, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge CAV Order 1. Heard Ms. Diksha Gouraha, learned counsel for the petitioner and YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.09.03 18:27:13 +0530 2 Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Impugned Order Dated 08.08.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may, kindly direct the respondent Directorate General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh to give effect the petitioner's promotion order dated 27.01.2022 (Annexure P/4), thereby petitioner to be promoted in the post of Sub Inspector. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly direct the respondent to grant all the consequential benefit with effect from 27.01.2022 i.e. the date of issuance of promotion order. 10.4 That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioner.” 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh (for short, ‘DGP’), whereby the promotion earlier granted to the petitioner to the post of Sub- Inspector has been cancelled and his name has been removed 3 from the list of promotion on the ground that the petitioner was inflicted with minor punishment. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he was serving as Assistant Sub- Inspector at Police Station Sonkyari, District Jashpur. An eligibility list for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector was published by the DGP on 21.05.2021, wherein the name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No.138. Subsequently, on 18.11.2021, a show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Jashpur, alleging negligence in discharge of duties and unsatisfactory disposal of investigation. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations, but not being satisfied, the authorities imposed a minor punishment of withholding of one annual increment with non-cumulative effect vide order dated 18/19.11.2021. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal as the eligibility of the petitioner for promotion was already considered and finalized prior to the punishment order. It is contended that the subsequent minor punishment cannot be given retrospective effect to deny the benefit of promotion. He further submits that once the petitioner was found fit by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the denial of promotion solely on account of a subsequent minor punishment is impermissible. 6. Reliance has been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this 4 Court in Writ Appeal No.56/2016 (Shivan Ram Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others) decided on 10.02.2016, wherein it has been held that retrospective effect of punishment cannot be a ground to deny the promotion. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the promotion order had not been passed in favour of the petitioner and only the list of suitable candidates had been published. He further submits that the petitioner, having been inflicted with punishment, could not have been granted promotion as the punishment order is a valid ground to deny promotion. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioner’s name was duly included in the eligibility list dated 21.05.2021 published by the DGP. At the relevant time, there was no punishment order against the petitioner. It is only subsequently on 18.11.2021 that the order of minor punishment of withholding of one increment was passed. The question, therefore, arises whether such subsequent punishment can retrospectively operate to deprive the petitioner of his right to promotion. 10. The Division Bench of this Court in Shivan Ram Thakur (supra) while considering an identical situation, has categorically held that the ineligibility or disentitlement for promotion has to be reckoned as on the date when the DPC considers the case for promotion. 5 Subsequent punishment or proceedings cannot be read back to nullify the recommendation or eligibility already considered. It was further observed that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, which can be denied only on relevant and cogent grounds and not arbitrarily. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below for easy reference :- “5. Having considered the submissions on behalf of the parties, the appeal raises a pure simple question of law with regard to the eligibility to be considered for promotion and the materials on basis of which the recommendation can be denied or refused to be implemented. The ineligibility or disentitlement of the benefit of the recommendation by the DPC has to be reckoned as on the date when the recommendation was being made. If a government servant is ineligible to be considered, there are no vacancies, proceedings are pending necessitating sealed cover procedure, are some of the factors when no mandamus can be issued. The consideration otherwise has to be exclusive on basis of facts and materials as may exist on the date when the DPC meets. It is apparent that the Appellant was not ineligible in any manner on 9.5.2007 and the vacancy was also available for promotion. The Respondents kept the matter pending for six months. They cannot be allowed to give retrospective effect to the suspension dated 6 24.11.2007 and the punishment dated 14.9.2009 by reading it back to 9.5.2007 to deny the benefit of the recommendation on the later date. The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right and denial can be only for relevant, germane and cogent reasons and not arbitrarily. 6. The appeal has to be allowed. The authorities are directed to act in accordance with the recommendation of the DPC dated 9.5.2007 within a maximum period of three months along with all consequential benefits from the date of receipt and/or production of a certified copy of this order.” 11. One more aspect requires consideration. In the eligibility list that was prepared and published, it is specifically mentioned that if any major punishment has been imposed upon an employee, it would affect his eligibility and must be informed accordingly. However, there is no mention in the said order that even in case of minor punishment the promotion can be withheld. There is also no stipulation that any punishment order can be given retrospective effect or that minor punishment can be a ground for denial of promotion. 12. It is also pertinent to note that in the eligibility list dated 21.05.2021, it was clearly mentioned that if any major punishment has been imposed upon an employee, it would affect his eligibility. However, there was no stipulation with regard to minor 7 punishment. Thus, the authorities themselves distinguished between the two categories, but while passing the impugned order, they treated the minor punishment as sufficient ground to cancel the promotion, which is self-contradictory in nature. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, has held that the sealed cover procedure or denial of promotion can be resorted to only when disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending as on the date of consideration. Any punishment imposed subsequently cannot relate back to the date of consideration. 14. Applying the settled principles of law, it is clear that on the date when the petitioner’s eligibility was considered i.e. on 21.05.2021, there was no punishment order against him. The subsequent punishment dated 18.11.2021 being minor in nature could not have been given retrospective effect to deny him promotion. The action of the respondents in cancelling the promotion of the petitioner is therefore arbitrary and unsustainable. 15. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the DGP is not in accordance with law and deserves to be quashed. 16. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.08.2022 is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of eligibility list dated 21.05.2021 and pass appropriate orders granting him promotion to 8 the post of Sub-Inspector along with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 17. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh