1 2025:CGHC:43420 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6584 of 2021  Satyavrat Jangde S/o Late Shankar Lal Jangde Aged About 41 Years Working As Forest Guard, Forest Division Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chief Conservator Of Forest Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Division Forest Officer Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 26. 08.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to set aside the order dated 31.08.2021 (Annexure P/1) and directed the respondent authorities to provide all consequential benefits to the petitioner including promotion and other monetary benefits treating the period of suspension to reinstatement as service period without any break in service. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.08.30 11:33:00 +0530 2 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working on the post of Forest Guard under respondent No. 4. An article of charge was issued by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner. He would further submit that a departmental enquiry was initiated and a penalty of dismissal from service was passed by the Divisional Forest Officer vide order dated 29.08.2019. He would further submit that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Chief Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur, and vide order dated 28.02.2020, the petitioner was reinstated in service and at the same time, the penalty was modified to the extent of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect and the petitioner was to be kept in the minimum scale till the entire career of his service. He would contend that a revision was preferred by the petitioner before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Raipur, and vide order dated 31.08.2021, the revision was partly allowed and the penalty was modified to the extent of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect and the period of suspension to reinstatement i.e. 13.04.2019 to 28.02.2020 as break in service (no work no pay). Mr. Rao would further contend that if the revisional authority had to inflict a major penalty as defined under Rule 10(v) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred as “Rules, 1966”), it was required to specify the period of penalty of stoppage of increment and in the absence of such a direction, the order is bad in law. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, would oppose. He would submit that the revisional 3 authority has inflicted a major penalty due to a mistake mentioned in “Rule 10 (iv) of the Rules, 1966”. He would further submit that the order passed by the revisional authority is valid and proper, and therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Rule 10(iv) & 10(v) of Rules, 1966 reads as under:- “10(iv) withholding of increments of pay or stagnation allowance; 10(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, on such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the further 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 of account of grant of stagnation allowance of any)” 6. A bare reading of the above-quoted provisions would make it clear that while inflicting a major penalty under the provisions of Rule 10(v) of the Rules, 1966, the authority concerned is required to specify the period of such a penalty. In the present case, the revisional authority inflicted the penalty without specifying the period, and therefore, in my opinion, the order is bad in the law, therefore, the matter is remitted back to the revisional authority to decide it afresh after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. The entire exercise shall be completed by the authority concerned within a period of 90 days. 4 8. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant