1 2025:CGHC:45116 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8167 of 2019 1 - K.R. Darshyamkar S/o J.R. Darshyamkar Aged About 61 Years Presently Working As Incharge Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer In Chief Public Works Department, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer Public Works Department, Surguja Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department, Ambikapur, Division Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer. (HON’BLE MR. NARESH KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI, J) Order on Board 03/09/2025 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :- Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.09.09 10:25:54 +0530 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the promotional avenues of the petitioner to the higher post. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to open the seal cover of the petitioner and consider the petitioner for promotion from the date when his junior was considered without reference to the order of punishment by conducting review DPC. 10.3 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 submits that, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department vide order dated 26-12-1985. He was given time bound promotion and while filing instant writ petition, he was working as in-charge Executive Engineer at Jashpur. He further submits that, vide order dated 19-6- 2007 (Annexure P-1), he was inflicted with a penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. Because of aforesaid penalty, in the Departmental Promotion Committee (henceforth, referred to as ‘DPC’) meeting, held in the year 2007-2008, he was not granted promotion. The order (Annexure P-1) dated 19-6-2007 was challenged by him before the appellate authority by filing appeal on 3-9-2007. When no action was taken on appeal of petitioner, he preferred WPS No. 6784/2014, which was disposed of vide order (Annexure P-2) dated 5- 1-2015 with a direction to the competent authority to decide the appeal. In compliance of order (Annexure P-2) dated 5-1-2015, appeal filed by the petitioner was decided vide order (Annexure P-3) dated 3 1-7-2015 by the appellate authority and penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect, which is a major penalty, was reduced to withholding two increments with non-cumulative effect, which is a minor penalty. Thereafter, no DPC was held and the petitioner retired on 31-1-2021 from the post of in-charge Executive Engineer. Since the petitioner has retired and his penalty has been reduced from major penalty to minor penalty, and since the minor penalty does not disqualify petitioner to be considered for promotion, therefore, he prayed that, this petition may be disposed of directing respondents to consider case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and Superintendent Engineer by convening review DPC so that, the terminal and pensionary benefits can be accumulated to him. He referred to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of M.P. and Others [2008 (3) M.P.H.T. 353] and also the circular dated 27/02/1975 issued by the General Administration Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, to contend that, in such case of like nature where the penalty imposed is converted into the minor penalty, then it cannot be held to be a disqualification for consideration for promotion. 3. Respondents/State has filed reply. Referring to its reply, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, submits that, since the petitioner was imposed major penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 19-6-2007, therefore, he was not promoted in the DPC held in the year 2007-2008. Learned Panel Lawyer further submits that, in appeal preferred by the petitioner, major penalty was 4 reduced and petitioner was inflicted minor penalty of withholding two increments with non-cumulative effect. The order of modifying penalty, inflicted against the petitioner, was again challenged by the petitioner by filing WPS No. 5003/2015, in which, the coordinate bench of this Court vide order (Annexure P-4) dated 15-1-2018 directed the respondents to reconsider penalty inflicted against petitioner. In compliance of that order, the issue was reconsidered by the respondents and vide order (Annexure P-5) dated 6-12-2018, the order dated 1-7-2015 (Annexure P-3) was upheld and prayer of the petitioner was rejected. Subsequently, on 31-1-2021, the petitioner has retired. He further submits that case of his promotion was not considered, as no DPC was held from the year 2018 till retirement of petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Undisputedly, earlier the petitioner was inflicted major penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect vide order (Annexure P-1) dated 19-6-2007. In appeal preferred by the petitioner, the major penalty was subsequently reduced vide order (Annexure P- 3) dated 1-7-2015 and it was modified to infliction of two increments with non-cumulative effect, which is a minor penalty. 6. Part VII Rule 23 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (henceforth referred to as ‘CCA Rules’) provides for filing an appeal. Rule 23 (i) of the C.C.A. Rules gives a right to a 5 government servant to prefer an appeal against any penalty imposed specified in Rule 10. Since the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, it would not be a minor penalty as envisaged under Rule 10 (iv) of the C.C.A. Rules. The relevant part of Rule 10 of the C.C.A. Rules is reproduced hereinbelow:- "10. Penalties. The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely: Minor penalties:- (i) Censure; (ii) Withholding of his promotion; (ii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of order, (iv) withholding of increments of pay or stagnation allowance;" 7. While the appeal was filed by the petitioner on 3-9-2007, in the meanwhile, the DPC was convened in the year 2007-2008, in which, the case of the petitioner was not considered. When the statutory rules provide a right to file an appeal, until it has been adjudicated finally and which came to be decided on 1-7-2015 and the petitioner was exonerated of the major penalty and only the minor penalty was imposed, then no reason was in existence to disqualify the petitioner from consideration of promotion. The notification dated 27/02/1975 6 issued by the General Administration Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it has been laid down that the minor penalty do not disqualify any person for consideration for promotion, would apply. For sake of brevity said notification is reproduced hereinbelow:- “1. General Instructions: म. प्र. सामान्य प्रशासन विभाग ज्ञापन क्रमांक एफ. 3-2-75-एक, विनांक 27-2- 1975 विषय: शासकीय सेकों की पोन्नति पर लघु-शास्ति#यों का प्रभा। जब विकसी शासकीय सेक को मध्यप्रेश सिसविल सेा (ग*करण, विनयंत्रण था अपील) विनयम, 1966 के विनयम 10 में उसि1खि3 कोई लघु-शास्ति# अति5रोविप की जाी है, ो उस व्यवि9 की भाी पोन्नति पर शास्ति# का क्या प्रभा पड़ा है, यह प्रश्न शासन के विचारा5ीन था। इस संबं5 में विभागीय पोन्नति सविमति द्वारा पोन्नति के मामलों पर विचार करने के खिलए यह #पष्ट विकया जाा है, विक यवि विकसी शासकीय सेक को 'पोन्नति को रोकना छोड़कर अन्य कोई लघु-शास्ति# ी जाी है ो के ल उस शास्ति# के कारण ही उसकी पोन्नति के संबं5 में यह 5ारणा बनाकर विक ह पोन्नति के योग्य नहीं है, उसकी उपयु9ा के संबं5 में विचार न करना उतिच नहीं है। ऐसे व्यवि9यों की पोन्नति की उपयु9ा के संबं5 में विचार करे समय विभागीय पोन्नति सविमति द्वारा उनके विपछले अभिभले3 था कायF का सम# मूल्यांकन करने के खिलये उन परिरस्ति#थतियों को भी ध्यान में लेना आश्यक है, सिजनके कारण उन्हें लघु-शास्ति# अति5रोविप की गई है. सिजससे विक उसकी उपयु9ा के संबं5 में ठीक-ठीक मूल्यांकन विकया जा सके । इस प्रकार यवि कोई व्यवि9 पोन्नति के खिलए उपयु9 समझा जाा है, ो उसकी पोन्नति करने में कोई आपखिN नही है, विकन्ु ऐसी पोन्नति भूलक्षी प्रभा से नहीं ी जा सकी। 2. इस संबं5 में यह भी #पष्ट विकया जाा है विक सिजन शासकीय सेकों को "ेन ृतिQयां रोकना" या "पोन्नति रोकना" ण्ड विया गया है, उन्हे उ9 ण्ड की अति5 के ौरान पोन्न करने से उन्हें ी गई शास्ति# का प्रभा समाप्त हो जायेगा। अः इन व्यवि9यों को उ9 ण्ड की अति5 समाप्त होने के बा ही, यवि े पोन्नति के खिलए उपयुF9 पैराग्राफ में उ1ेखि3 प्रविक्रया अपनाने के बा उपयु9 पाये जाे हैं, ो पोन्न विकया जा सके गा। 7 3. कृ पया उपयुF9 अनुेश से सभी संबंति5 अति5कारिरयों को अग करा ें, ाविक भविष्य में इस प्रकार के मामलों को विनपटाने में उन्हें मागFशFन विमल सके ।" 8. In the light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of M.P. and Others [2008 (3) M.P.H.T. 353] and also in view of the circular dated 27/02/1975, it is quite vivid that, in the case where the penalty imposed is converted into the minor penalty, then it cannot be held to be a disqualification for consideration for promotion of an employee. 9. In the instant case, since the petitioner eventually was exonerated of the major punishment/penalty, and was inflicted minor penalty vide order (Annexure P-3) dated 1-7-2015, therefore, he was required to be considered for promotion. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to convene review DPC to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, who has retired on 31-1-2021 and thereafter the necessary orders shall be passed of his further entitlement touching upon retiral & pensionary benefits. 10. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of. 11. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak