1 2025:CGHC:12864 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 35 of 2025 1 - Dinesh Singh Rajput S/o Shri Uday Singh Rajput Aged About 54 Years Working As Forester, Raigarh Forest Division, Raigarh R/o Village And Post Shardha, P/s Lormi, District- Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) Pin 495- 115 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, C.G. Forest And Climate Change Forest Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, C.G. Pin 492-002 2 - The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest C.G. Forest And Climate Change Forest Department, Aranya Bhawan North Block, Sector- 19 Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Pin 492-015 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.03.21 16:49:15 +0530 2 3 - The Chief Conservator Of Forest Bilaspur Forest Circle, Sindhi Colony, Bilaspur, C.G. Pin 495-001 4 - The Divisional Forest OfÏcer Katghora Forest Division, Katghora, District- Bilaspur, C.G. Pin 495-445 ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sandeep Dubey, with Shri Alok Chandra Rishi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nupoor Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 18.03.2025 1. The petitioner, who is presently working as Forester in Raigarh Forest Division Raigarh, is questioning the order dated 05.09.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority/respondent No. 2, whereby the major penalty altered into minor penalty and period of suspension has not been treated as duty. The petitioner is also questioning the order of the reviewing authority/respondent no 1, by which the review application has been rejected and upheld the order of appellate authority (Annexure P/2). 2. (a) The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was posted as Beat Guard Baraudkhar since 02/01/2015 to 02/07/2019 along with an additional charge of Konkona beat within Pondi Sub- Range of Etmanagar Range. The petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 02/07/2019 for hiding and misguiding 3 the fact of illicit cutting of trees with the superior OfÏcers. Thereafter, by order dated 8/5/2020 respondent no. 3 revoked the order of suspension and during pendency of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was posted at Katghora Division ofÏce as special duty Forest Guard. It was also mentioned that the suspension period shall be decided with departmental enquiry. The petitioner was placed under suspension for total 312 days i.e. about 10 months 7 days. (b) In the departmental enquiry, the enquiry ofÏcer found the charge proved partially and passed a recovery order of Rs. 17,467/- from the salary of the petitioner along with major penalty of withholding 3 increments with cumulative effect under Rule 10(5) of C.G. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal), Rules, 1966 and suspension period treated as ‘the period of no duty’. Same punishment imposed on Shri Pankaj Kumar Khairwar Beat Guard Pondi, Shri Pritam Puraeen Beat Guard Tanakhar and Sub-Range OfÏcer Shri Ajay Kumar Sai Forester, for recovery of loss of timber Rs. 88,879/- (60% part of 1,48,131/-), Rs. 3,533/- and 59,252/-/- (40% part of 1,48,131/-) respectively with penalty of withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect to all of them except Shri Puraeen, along with suspension period was to be treated as duty by individual order on common date 15/03/2021. Strict warning given to Shri Purain. No reason ascertained as to why suspension period granted as duty. Suspension period in case of the petitioners not treated as duty period. This discriminating discretion prejudice to the petitioner with biasness. The magnitude of misconduct for all 4 delinquents leveled partially proved. Appellate Authority did not ascertain any reason as to why the conduct of petitioner is liable for major penalty in compare to other who penalize for minor penalty. (c) Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no. 2 (Principal of Chief Conservator of Forest) passed the order dated 05/09/2022 for recovery of Rs. 17,467/- to the loss of forest including withholding of 3 increments with cumulative effect (A major punishment) amended to 01 increment without cumulative effect (minor punishment) but the suspension period to be treated without duty in the name of equal justice. The petitioner is assailing that the decision on suspension period is not tuned with equal justice. (d) Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred a review application before respondent no.1 for equal justice in the matter of suspension period, who declined to interfere with the same vide order dated 14/06/2023, on the ground that once a relaxation has been given in the matter of penalty, cannot be extended for the other matter. The petitioner is contending that respondent no. 2 passed order to reduce the increment by 3 to 1 in relaxation and it cannot be extended twice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the comparative chart narrated in page 3 of the writ petition submits that on similar charge to some of the employees the disciplinary authorities treated them differently by imposing stoppage of increment and recovery of amount, whereas in the case of the petitioner the appellate authority by maintaining the punishment of stoppage of increment and 5 recovery of amount directing not to treat the suspension period as on duty. He refer a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P. 1, where Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. Hence the order of the appellate authority by which the appellate authority has directed not to treat the period of suspension as on duty is absolutely illegal arbitrary and is discriminatory in nature. 4. Learned State counsel submit that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the punishment impose on Ajay Kumar Sai, Forester, Pankaj Kumar Khairwar, Forest Guard, Preetam Kumar Puraeen Forest Guard is completely on different set of facts and the petitioner cannot claim parity from the cases of such employees to whom the punishment of treating the suspension period as duty has not been imposed. 5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings of the petitioner as well as the reply filed by the respondent and the document relied upon by the petitioner by which punishments were imposed to other similarly placed employees on the similar set of charges. 6. It appears that in the case of Ajay Kumar Sai Forester punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect has been imposed and 40% of monetary loss has been directed to be recovered from said Ajay Kumar Sai by treating his suspension period as duty. Similarly in case of Pankaj Khairwar forest guard punishment of one increment without cumulative effect imposed and 1. 2013 (3) SCC 73 6 60% of the monetary loss directed to be recovered by treating the period of suspension as duty. In case of Preetam Kumar Puraeen Forest Guard punishment of strict warning has been given and 100% amount directed to be recovered from the monetary loss by treating the suspension period as on duty, however, in the present case of the petitioner the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of stoppage of 3 increment with cumulative effect and directed recovery of 100% amount of monetary loss by directing not to treat the suspension period of the petitioner as duty, when the petitioner filed an appeal the appellate authority by interfering with the punishment of stoppage of three increment with cumulative effect reduce the same to one increment without cumulative effect and maintained the recovery amount but did not interfere with the punishment by which the disciplinary authority directed not to treat the period of suspension as on duty and maintained the same. It appears from the aforesaid fact that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority including the reviewing authority has not interfered to the punishment of treating suspension period not to be treated as duty, whereas in the similarly situated employees they have treated the suspension period as on duty which appears to be discriminatory in nature. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajendra Yadav (Supra) observed that the doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty the persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment. 7 7. Hence the in view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The direction of treating the suspension period not to be treated as on duty is quashed and period of suspension of the petitioner to be treated as on duty. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib