1 2025:CGHC:47703 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8824 of 2019 1 - Santosh Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Padum Nath Gupta Aged About 56 Years Up Abhiyanta Gramin Yantriki Seva Division Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikash Department Ministry, Atal Nagar, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhavan, Police Station Rakhi, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary, State Government of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Kabirdham Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Sharma appears on behalf of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ritesh Giri, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.09.18 17:06:05 +0530 2 Order On Board 17/09/2025 1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 22.06.2018, whereby the petitioner was imposed a minor penalty of withholding two increments without cumulative effect in view of the provisions contained in Rule 10(4) of the CG Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and was also not granted full salary and allowances for the period of suspension, as per the provisions of Fundamental Rule- 54 (B). 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the Petition, the petitioner has already been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer vide order dated 31.12.2020 and has subsequently retired from the said post on 28.02.2025. Consequently, the petitioner is not challenging the order of punishment and is limiting his relief to the extent that although a minor punishment was imposed, the full salary and allowances during the period of suspension have not been granted in his favour by the impugned order. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment passed in WPS No.2959/2022 (Smt. Krishna Verma vs. State of C.G. and others) vide order dated 05.12.2024 by the Coordinate Bench. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that in the impugned order, the issue of salary during the suspension period has also been decided; therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The circular dated 23.11.2010 issued the by State; particularly, para 6 is reproduced herein-below for reference:- “6. मुख्य शास्ति हे ु संस्ति विभागीय जाँच में यवि विसी विलंवि शासीय से पर जॉच उपरां लघु शास्ति ही अधि%रोविप ी जा ी है ो उसा विलं औधिचत्यपूर्ण, ही माा जा स ा। अ ः राज्य शास े विर्ण,य लिलया है वि ऐसे मामलों में संंधि% शासीय से ी विलं अधि% ो मूलभू वियम- 54- ी े परिरप्रेक्ष्य में ,व्य अधि% मान्य र विलं अधि% े संपूर्ण, े - भत्ते ( शासीय से े विलं अधि% में भुग ा विए गए " जी विा,ह भत्ते" ी राशिश ा समायोज र) विए जाएं। यह विर्ण,य इस ज्ञाप े प्राशिश होे ी धि शि से लागू होगा ा जिज प्ररर्णों में विर्ण,य लिलया जा चुा है, े पुः ही खोले जाएंगे।" 6. A bare perusal of the circular would make it clear that if a Government Servant is placed under suspension and in a departmental enquiry, minor punishment is inflicted, in such a situation, such Government servant would be entitled to get the full salary and allowances against the period of suspension according to the provisions of Fundamental Rule 54 (B). 7. In the present case, the petitioner was placed under suspension and later on, a penalty of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect was imposed. However, regarding the salary during the suspension period, it was ordered that the petitioner would receive only the suspension allowance and not the full salary and allowances. It appears that the said part of the order is against the circular dated 23.11.2010, 4 which clearly states that if a minor penalty is imposed on a Government servant, he would be entitled to get full salary and allowances. 8. In view of the above, in the opinion of this Court, an error has been committed by the respondents in declining the claim of the petitioner with regard to salary and allowances during the suspension period; therefore, the order dated 22.06.2018 (Annexure P/3) is hereby quashed to that extent. 9. Accordingly, the instant Petition is allowed only with regard to the relief that the petitioner shall be entitled to get salary and allowance for the period of suspension in accordance with the Circular dated 23.11.2010. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka