1 (WPS No. 2677 of 2015) 2025:CGHC:27449 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2677 of 2015 1 - Rajeev Tyagi S/o Shri Om Prakash Tyagi Aged About 58 Years R/o M.D. 202, Kabeer Nagar, Phase-4, Tahsil Raipur, Police Station Saraswati Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Forest Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Chhattisgarh, Aranya Bhawan, Medical College Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For State :- Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 24.06.2025 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 06.02.2015 (Annexure P/1), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed, affirming order dated 10.07.2014 (Annexure P/2), by which the petitioner has been inflicted with a minor penalty of recovery of Rs. ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.06.28 10:46:45 +0530 2 (WPS No. 2677 of 2015) 19,823/- and further imposed with penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short the Rules of 1966). 2. Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of Rs.19,823/- has already been recovered from the petitioner and further stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect would have the impact of imposing major penalty in light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab1 and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would support the impugned orders. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, admittedly, three charges against the petitioner were found to be proved and the petitioner was subjected to minor penalty of recovery of Rs.19,823/- and which is said to have already been recovered from the petitioner. However, the petitioner has further been 1 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504 3 (WPS No. 2677 of 2015) imposed with the penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect, which will have the effect of imposing major penalty in light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kulwant Singh Gill (supra). Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the charges, the impugned order dated 10.07.2014 passed by the disciplinary authority as affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 06.02.2015 are modified and punishment of withholding of one increment with non-cumulative effect under Rule 10(iv) of the Rules of 1966 is awarded to the petitioner. In other words, penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is modified to penalty of withholding of one increment with non-cumulative effect. 6. With the aforesaid modification, this writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. The petitioner is at liberty to make representation for the consequential benefits arising from the outcome of this order within 30 days, which should be considered and decided by the respondent authority expeditiously. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!