1 2025:CGHC:4404-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 45 of 2025 Sandeep Pandey S/o Late Shri Dhaniram Pandey Aged About 45 Years R/o Ntpc (Wrongly Mentioned In Annexure-A//1 As Wtpc), Jamnipali, Quarter No. 1409/b, Korba, Police Station Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, C.G. (Petitioner) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home/police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, C.G (Respondent No. 1) 2 - Director General Of Police (Dgp) Police Headquarter (Phq), Near Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur C.G. (Respondent No. 2) 3 - Inspector General Of Police (Igp) Office Of The Inspector General Of Police, Near Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, C.G. (Respondent No. 3) 4 - Superintendent Of Police (Sp) Office Of The Superintendent Of Police, Korba, District- Korba, C.G. (Respondent No. 4) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.24 17:46:45 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents / State. 2. This writ appeal is presented assailing the order dated 22.07.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 5567/2019 (Sandeep Pandey vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein was disposed of by the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2006, the writ petitioner was posted as Constable in Traffic and on the basis of some complaint against him, respondent No.4/Superintendent of Police (SP), Korba issued charge sheet against him on 07.9.2006. The writ petitioner filed reply to the charge sheet, however, respondent No.4 conducted departmental enquiry against him. After the enquiry, the writ petitioner was found guilty and respondent No.4 imposed punishment of minimum pay scale for one year against the writ petitioner. Thereafter the writ petitioner preferred appeal before respondent No.3/Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur. Vide Order dated 25.3.2008, IGP, Bilaspur amended the punishment order of the writ petitioner by reducing one increment 3 for one year. But in the said order it has not been clearly mentioned that reducing one increment for one year with cumulative or non-cumulative effect. The writ petitioner has filed representation to clarify the above punishment and vide Order dated 30.5.2008 the IGP, Bilaspur decided the representation of the writ petitioner and clarified that reducing one increment for one year is with non-cumulative effect. However, respondent No.4 and his office staff have treated the punishment as reducing one increment for one year with cumulative effect and each year they deducted the amount from the salary of the writ petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said fact, the writ petitioner / appellant herein preferred WPS No. 5567/2019, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge holding that grievance of the writ petitioner has already been redressed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition on the submission of the respondent State, but the writ petitioner received order and submitted the same before the respondents. Instead of granting increment from the date of the petitioner's entitlement, their say is, because the Hon'ble Court has recorded the finding that he is entitled from 01.07.2008, therefore, they are not ready to grant increment from 01.07.2007. In the writ petition, the respondent State has admitted that the writ petitioner is entitled for increment which was clarified by the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur, 4 but after disposal of the writ petition, still the respondent State i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Korba is not granting increment from 01.07.2007 from which date the writ petitioner is entitled. Four Constables including the present writ petitioner were suspended, whereas suspension of three Constables except the writ petitioner was revoked within 45 days and the writ petitioner remained suspended for 233 long days that too without any rhyme and reason. The appellant / writ petitioner had filed writ petition before this Hon'ble Court for a direction to respondent No.4 to clarify the order dated 25.03.2008 and also the order dated 30.05.2008 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur and he had also prayed for refund of the deducted amount to him i.e. 25% treating the punishment reducing one year increment with non- cumulative effect, but while disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the reply filed by the respondent State in para 7. Though the writ petitioner / appellant is entitled for all the benefits from the year 2007, but after passing of this order, the respondent Superintendent of Police, Korba is only replying the writ petitioner that they have already clarified the order and therefore, the writ petitioner has no dues and he is entitled for increment from 01.07.2008, though he is entitled for increment from 2007. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant in his appeal and submits that the learned Single Judge after 5 considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant coming to the conclusion that writ petitioner’s grievance has already been redressed and increment has already been granted to the writ petitioner observing the records which goes to show that after reduction of the punishment by respondent No.3/Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur, the writ petitioner was only imposed punishment of stoppage of increment of one year with non-cumulative effect. It was contended by both the parties, particularly learned counsel for the writ petitioner that, after the stoppage of one increment with non cumulative effect, now the writ petitioner has been granted increment, to which he is otherwise entitled. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and 6 circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmities or perversities, as such we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet