1 2025:CGHC:13262 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3669 of 2019 Dr. Anil Gupta S/o Shri Ghanshyam Das Gupta Aged About 57 Years Medical Specialist, Currently Posted As Medical Specialist At District Hospital Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Chhattisgarh Rajya Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Programming Officer Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Chhattisgarh Rajya Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director Of Health Services Directorate, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 20/03/2025 1. Heard. 2. This petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by petitioner seeking following reliefs:- “That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:- (a) Allow the petition by issuing the writ of the Certiorari 2 quashing the impugned order Annexure P-1; (b) Direct the respondents to return the withheld increment of the petitioner; (c) The period of suspension of the petitioner shall be directed to be deemed as period spent on duty as per circular of 23.11.2010; (d) Any other relief/direction as may be deemed fit in the fact and circumstances of the case; (e) Grant cost of the petition” 3. Perusal of relief clause and content of the petition shows that the petitioner has been held guilty in departmental enquiry proceeding and penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon him but he has challenged Annexure-P/1, which is only communication with regard to endorsement about aforesaid punishment in the service book of the petitioner. 4. When specific question was posed to the learned counsel for the petitioner that whether petitioner has filed any appeal against the order of departmental enquiry imposing the punishment against him, learned counsel referring to page no.63 would submit that petitioner has filed appeal on 15.05.2016 before Hon’ble Governor but the same has not been decided yet. 5. Since there is efficacious remedy available to the petitioner to file appeal, which he has already been filed but the same has not been decided by respondent No.1 till date, therefore, this petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to decide appeal filed by petitioner. Liberty is left with the petitioner to file fresh memo of appeal referring to his earlier memo of appeal dated 15.05.2016 within a period of 30 days from today and if such appeal is filed, then State-respondents is 3 directed to decide the appeal within a further period of 90 days from the date of filing fresh memo of appeal. However, liberty is also left with the petitioner that if his grievance is not redressed, then he may file fresh petition. 6. With aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.03.20 16:17:16 +0530