1 2025:CGHC:53995 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3889 of 2023 1 - Himanchal Patel S/o Shri Baludram Patel, Aged About 58 Years Occupation Service Posted As Lecturer At Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School Dharamjaygarh, P.S. And Tahsil Dharamjaygarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Public Education Directorate, Block -3, First Floor, Indirawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 04/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 10.05.2023 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the representation submitted by the petitioner has been arbitrarily rejected without proper consideration of facts and the applicable provisions of the CCA Rules. The petition is filed to redress the continuous monetary loss caused to the petitioner due to wrongful Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 treatment of a minor penalty of withholding two increments without cumulative effect, operative only for two years (26.05.2018 to 26.05.2020), as a continuing major penalty. Hence, this petition seeking following relief : 10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing impugned order dated 10.05.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no. 2. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authority to add the annual increment in the 9 salary of the petitioner just after completing 2 years i.e. from June 2020. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ commanding and directing the respondent- authorities to provide the arrears of increments from June 2020 to the date of its releasing. 10.4 Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner has been serving the Education Department sincerely and has maintained an unblemished record throughout his service career, except for the present controversy which arose out of unfortunate circumstances beyond his control. The petitioner is an active and respected member of the Patel Community, which regularly holds community meetings to resolve internal disputes and maintain social harmony among its members. On 05.04.2009, the petitioner attended one such meeting of the community, wherein certain disciplinary action was taken against 3 one Shri Gendlal Patel, a member of the same community. Feeling aggrieved by the said disciplinary decision, Shri Gendlal Patel lodged a criminal complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (offence of defamation) against the petitioner and other community members who were present in the said meeting. Thereafter, the said complaint case proceeded before the competent Judicial Magistrate First Class, and after due process of trial, the learned Trial Court convicted the petitioner along with others and imposed upon them the sentence of punishment till rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 500/- each vide judgment and order dated 18.09.2017. Being dissatisfied with the said judgment, the petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal, which unfortunately was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 22.12.2017, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Subsequent to the conviction, the complainant Shri Gendlal Patel made a representation to the Block Education Officer (BEO) and the District Education Officer (DEO) seeking appropriate departmental action against the petitioner on the ground of his conviction in the aforesaid complaint case. Acting upon the said representation, the BEO forwarded the complaint to the Principal of the School where the petitioner was posted. On receiving the communication, the District Education Officer sought a legal opinion from the Government Advocate. Relying upon the conviction order passed by the trial court, the DEO initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 10(4) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the “CCA Rules, 1966”). Thereafter, on the basis of the said legal opinion and in 4 consequence of the conviction, the DEO passed an order dated 26.05.2018, imposing upon the petitioner the minor penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect. However, the said order failed to specify the period for which the increments were to be withheld. The absence of any mention of the duration created ambiguity in the interpretation of the order, and in practice, it resulted in cumulative stoppage of increments, which is contrary to the express term “non-cumulative effect.” Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate court, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Petition before this Court, challenging the legality and validity of the conviction order and also praying for stay of conviction. Simultaneously, the petitioner submitted an application before the Director, Public Education (respondent No. 2), informing him about the pendency of the revision petition and requesting the department to keep the punishment order dated 26.05.2018 in abeyance till the decision of the revision petition. This Court, upon due consideration, was pleased to stay the conviction of the petitioner vide order dated 06.08.2019 passed in Criminal Revision No. 45/2018. The said stay order was duly communicated to the concerned authorities, and the criminal revision is still pending consideration before this Court. Despite the stay of conviction, the departmental authorities did not take any steps to restore the financial benefits of the petitioner. The increments that were stopped vide order dated 26.05.2018 were not reinstated in the salary structure of the petitioner, even though the legal basis of the punishment, namely, the conviction, had already been stayed by this Court. Consequently, the 5 petitioner submitted a representation dated 19.01.2021 before the District Education Officer (respondent No. 3) seeking restoration of his increments and release of consequential benefits. The DEO, upon examining the matter, forwarded the application of petitioner to the Director, Public Education (respondent No. 2) vide letter dated 21.05.2021 with necessary remarks for appropriate action. Even thereafter, the petitioner once again submitted a detailed application along with all relevant documents before the Director, Public Education, reiterating his request for cancellation of the punishment order dated 26.05.2018 and restoration of the two withheld increments. The petitioner specifically stated that as per Rule 10(4) of the CCA Rules, 1966, a minor punishment of stoppage of increments with non- cumulative effect operates only for a limited period and cannot have a permanent impact on the employee’s salary. Accordingly, after the lapse of such period, the petitioner was entitled to restoration of his increments. The petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition before this Court seeking appropriate relief. This Court, vide order dated 18.11.2022, was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the competent authority for redressal of his grievance. In compliance with the order of this Court, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 28.11.2022, annexing therewith the order of this Court, and the District Education Officer forwarded the same to respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 30.11.2022 for appropriate decision. Despite the clear direction of this Court, the respondent authorities failed to act in accordance with law and continued to withhold the increments of petitioner. The 6 departmental authorities, instead of considering the legal implications of the stay of conviction and the non-cumulative nature of the punishment, arbitrarily passed the impugned order dated 10.05.2023, rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioner on the erroneous ground that although the conviction has been stayed, it has not yet been set aside. As a result of the arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents, the minor punishment which was supposed to have a temporary and non-cumulative effect has been continued for more than five years, contrary to law and the principles of service jurisprudence. The continued non-restoration of increments has caused substantial financial loss to the petitioner, amounting to approximately Rs. 5,000/- per month, and has adversely affected his salary, pensionary benefits, and overall service record. The respondents’ inaction in implementing the effect of the stay order and their failure to interpret the CCA Rules correctly demonstrates non-application of mind and administrative arbitrariness. The authorities were bound to review and withdraw the punishment once the conviction had been stayed by this Court. Their failure to do so has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioner, who continues to suffer despite no subsisting conviction against him as of date. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court once again by filing the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order impugned dated 10.05.2023 is bad in the eye of law, illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable. The Director, Public Education Directorate (respondent No. 2) has committed a serious legal error in rejecting the representation of the petitioner without properly appreciating the 7 provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter “CCA Rules, 1966”) and without giving due consideration to the nature and effect of the minor punishment order dated 26.05.2018. The authority has failed to understand that the said punishment order, being a minor penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect, cannot be made perpetual or indefinite in nature. By ignoring the clear legal mandate, the Director has acted mechanically and without the application of judicial mind, thereby rendering the impugned order wholly unjust and arbitrary. It is submitted that as per the order of punishment dated 26.05.2018, the petitioner was awarded a minor penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with non-cumulative effect. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that non- cumulative effect means that the stoppage is only for a specified period and after the expiry of that period, the employee is entitled to restoration of the said increments. However, in the instant case, though the order dated 26.05.2018 specifically mentions that the punishment is minor and non-cumulative, no period or duration was mentioned therein, which has resulted in the punishment continuing indefinitely. If such stoppage of increments is allowed to operate for an indefinite period, it ceases to be a minor penalty and assumes the character of a major penalty, which is impermissible in law. Under the CCA Rules, 1966, there is a clear distinction between minor and major penalties. The penalty of withholding increments for a specified period with non- cumulative effect is a minor penalty under Rule 10(4). However, if such stoppage continues for an indefinite duration, affecting the pay of 8 petitioner and future increments permanently, it becomes a major penalty that can be imposed only after conducting a regular departmental enquiry as per Rule 14 of the said Rules. Thus, the continuation of the penalty for more than five years, without any defined period, without reinstatement of increments, and without following the prescribed procedure, is ex facie illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. In light of the stay order passed by this Court dated 06.08.2019 in Criminal Revision No. 45/2018, whereby the conviction of the petitioner was stayed, the respondent department was legally and morally bound to reconsider the representation made by petitioner and to set aside or at least suspend the effect of the punishment order dated 26.05.2018. The very foundation of the departmental punishment was the conviction by the trial court. Once the conviction itself was stayed, the basis for continuation of the punishment no longer survived. However, despite the clear judicial mandate and the petitioner’s repeated representations, the respondents failed to restore the increments or review the punishment, resulting in the petitioner suffering continued financial loss for over five years. Such prolonged enforcement of a minor penalty, despite a subsisting stay of conviction, is not only illegal but also arbitrary, disproportionate, and unreasonable. At the time of passing the order of punishment dated 26.05.2018, the respondents did not mention any time limit for which the increments were to be withheld. This omission has rendered the order ambiguous, unworkable, and contrary to the very definition of a minor penalty. In effect, the order has turned into a permanent penalty, reducing the pay of petitioner for all future years, 9 thereby amounting to a major punishment in disguise. Such an order, passed without conducting a formal departmental enquiry under Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1966, is ultra vires and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Further, before passing the punishment order dated 26.05.2018, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing or show cause notice in terms of the procedural safeguards provided under the CCA Rules, 1966. The principles of natural justice mandate that no adverse order affecting the rights or benefits of a Government servant should be passed without giving him a reasonable opportunity to explain his case. However, in the instant matter, the respondents have passed the punishment order unilaterally, solely on the basis of the conviction made by trial Court, without conducting any independent departmental assessment or giving the petitioner an opportunity to present his defence. Such non-observance of the mandatory procedure renders the entire disciplinary action null and void ab initio. 4. It is further submitted that even assuming, without admitting, that the punishment order dated 26.05.2018 was valid, the same was only for a limited duration of two years, after which the increments ought to have been automatically restored. The expression “non-cumulative effect” clearly indicates that the stoppage of increments does not permanently affect the employee’s pay scale and that normal increments resume after the expiry of the period of punishment. Therefore, after completion of two years from 26.05.2018, i.e., from May 2020, the increments of petitioner should have been added back to his salary. However, the respondents failed to implement this in spirit, thereby continuing an 10 expired punishment indefinitely. The petitioner has made numerous representations and applications to the competent authorities, including the District Education Officer (respondent No. 3) and the Director, Public Education (respondent No. 2), requesting cancellation of the punishment order and restoration of his increments. Despite the DEO forwarding the application of petitioner with recommendations and despite directions from this Hon’ble Court in the earlier writ petition dated 18.11.2022 to consider the representation, the respondents have failed to pass a reasoned and lawful order. Instead, they have issued the impugned order dated 10.05.2023 in complete disregard of the CCA Rules, 1966 and directions of this Court, thereby committing a manifest error of law and procedure. The nature of conviction under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (Defamation) does not involve any moral turpitude or moral offence. The petitioner was never arrested, detained, or imprisoned in connection with the said case. The punishment of till rising of the court and fine of Rs. 500/- itself reflects the trivial and non-serious nature of the offence. Hence, treating such a conviction as a ground for prolonged punishment in service matters is contrary to established principles of proportionality and fairness. The respondent No. 2 has failed to comprehend the true scope and meaning of a minor punishment with non-cumulative effect and has wrongly interpreted it as a permanent penal consequence, which is wholly unjustified. The respondents’ action in continuing the punishment for over five years, even after the stay of conviction and after expiry of the reasonable period of penalty, is arbitrary, oppressive, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The 11 petitioner has suffered grave financial and professional prejudice due to the illegal inaction of the authorities, who have failed to apply the CCA Rules in their true spirit. Therefore, in the impugned order dated 10.05.2023 deserves to be quashed and set aside for being passed in contravention of the CCA Rules, 1966, the settled principles of law, and the orders of this Court. The respondents may kindly be directed to restore the two annual increments of petitioner stopped vide order dated 26.05.2018 with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and corrections in service records. The continued denial of lawful increments and benefits has caused not only financial hardship but also mental agony and professional stagnation to the petitioner, who has otherwise served the department with dedication and sincerity. The respondents’ failure to appreciate the true legal position has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, and intervention by this Court is therefore warranted in the interest of fairness, equity, and justice. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the present petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit and substance, and accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The entire claim of petitioner is premised upon the contention that the punishment of withholding of two annual increments imposed upon him vide order dated 26.05.2018 has already expired in effect and, therefore, the respondents ought to have restored the said increments. Such contentions are wholly misconceived, misdirected, and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is submitted that the petitioner, admittedly, was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharamjaigarh, District 12 Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, vide judgment dated 18.09.2017 in Criminal Case No. 30/2010 for commission of offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to the punishment “till rising of the Court” along with a fine of Rs. 500/- and default clause of 15 days’ rigorous imprisonment. Consequent to the said conviction, the respondents, in exercise of their powers under Rule 10(iv) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “CCA Rules, 1966”), imposed upon the petitioner the punishment of withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 26.05.2018. This order was passed in accordance with the legal and statutory provisions governing disciplinary proceedings against a Government servant convicted of an offence. It is submitted that the petitioner challenged the said conviction before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 131/2017, and the learned Appellate Court, after due consideration, affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Further, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 45/2018, wherein the Court granted only a stay on the operation of the conviction, without setting aside the conviction itself. Therefore, it is clear that the conviction of the petitioner has not yet been quashed or set aside, and the petitioner has not been exonerated from the criminal charges against him. It is submitted that the claim of petitioner for restoration of the withheld increments is entirely premature and legally untenable. The respondents, while considering the representation of petitioner for restoration of increments in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7650/2022, rightly examined the 13 matter in light of the ongoing criminal proceedings and the subsisting conviction. It is a settled principle that once a Government servant is convicted by a competent Criminal Court, such conviction continues to form the basis of departmental disciplinary action until it is set aside. Accordingly, the withholding of two annual increments, though described as a “minor penalty” under Rule 10(iv) of the CCA Rules, cannot be treated in isolation from the criminal conviction, as the conviction itself is yet to be overturned or nullified. It is submitted that the contention of petitioner that non-restoration of increments post the expiry of the “punishment period” converts a minor penalty into a major penalty is wholly misconceived. The minor penalty imposed upon the petitioner was legally grounded in the conviction recorded by the trial Court, and the effect of such a penalty is inherently linked with the legal consequences of the conviction. Since the conviction has not been quashed or declared null and void, the foundation for the punishment continues to subsist. Therefore, the respondents rightly declined to restore the withheld increments, and there is no question of conversion into a major penalty requiring initiation of departmental enquiry under Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1966. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 10.05.2023, whereby the representation of petitioner for restoration of increments was considered and declined, is just, proper, and legally sustainable. The respondents applied their mind to the representation in strict adherence to the statutory provisions and the directions of this Court. The decision was neither arbitrary nor mala fide, and no procedural or substantive irregularity can be attributed to the same. It is submitted that the assertion of petitioner that the non- 14 restoration of increments amounts to prolonged punishment is without any basis in law or fact. The administrative action of withholding increments is contingent upon the existence of a valid conviction and is subject to lawful discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority in accordance with the CCA Rules. The respondents, having duly examined the case of petitioner, found that the ongoing subsistence of conviction continues to justify the enforcement of the penalty, and hence, no relief is warranted. It is submitted that the entire petition is premised on a selective and incorrect reading of the order dated 26.05.2018, ignoring the crucial fact that the punishment was imposed consequent to a criminal conviction which has not yet been set aside. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural infirmity in the actions of the respondents. On the contrary, the respondents have complied with all legal mandates and have exercised their discretion judiciously, in accordance with law and departmental rules. It is submitted that in view of the foregoing, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the instant petition. The actions of the respondents in not restoring the withheld increments are entirely justified, proper, and lawful. The contentions made by learned counsel for petitioner are without substance, legally misconceived, and do not call for any interference by this Court. It is, therefore submitted that the present petition is wholly devoid of merit and substance, and in the interest of justice and law, it is liable to be dismissed. The respondents submit that the Court may be pleased to uphold the impugned order dated 10.05.2023 and reject all claims of the petitioner with due directions 15 that the matter is concluded lawfully in accordance with the provisions of the CCA Rules, 1966. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 7. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 10.05.2023 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the representation submitted by the petitioner for restoration of increments was rejected. The petitioner contends that the said rejection was arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the express provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter “CCA Rules, 1966”). The petitioner specifically seeks restoration of increments withheld as a minor penalty, with non-cumulative effect, from 26.05.2018 to 26.05.2020, along with consequential benefits. 8. Rule 10(4) of the CCA Rules, 1966 distinguishes between minor and major penalties. A minor penalty, such as stoppage of increments with non-cumulative effect, operates only for a specified duration. Non- cumulative effect implies that after the expiry of the punishment period, the increments are automatically restored. The order dated 26.05.2018 imposed a minor penalty of stoppage of two increments but failed to specify a period. Consequently, the penalty has been interpreted to operate indefinitely, contrary to the express nature of a minor penalty. Prolonged application transforms the minor penalty into a de facto major penalty, which requires compliance with Rule 14, including issuance of show-cause notice and departmental inquiry, which was not done in the instant case. 16 9. The criminal conviction of petitioner has been stayed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 45/2018. The stay operates as a suspension of the legal consequences of conviction. Once the conviction is stayed, the fundamental legal basis for departmental punishment is effectively neutralized. Administrative authorities are under a legal obligation to reconsider the punishment in light of the stay. The Department failed to consider the legal implications of the stay of conviction and the non- cumulative nature of the minor penalty. The petitioner was repeatedly ignored despite clear instructions from this Court (order dated 18.11.2022) to consider his representation. Such non-application of mind and arbitrary continuance of punishment is unsustainable. The offense under Section 500 IPC is of a minor and non-serious nature, with no moral turpitude involved. Treating such conviction as justification for indefinite denial of increments violates the principles of fairness, equity, and proportionality enshrined under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. The indefinite withholding of increments since 26.05.2018 has caused measurable financial loss and adversely affected pensionary benefits and service records. Continuation of punishment beyond the prescribed period without any formal departmental enquiry is legally untenable. Hence, the impugned order dated 10.05.2023 is arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. The minor penalty imposed on 26.05.2018 has expired by efflux of time, and its continued enforcement without a departmental inquiry is ultra vires. The Department failed to properly consider the stay of conviction, non-cumulative nature of punishment, and legal principles under the CCA Rules, thereby committing administrative arbitrariness. 17 Restoration of increments and arrears is a legal entitlement of the petitioner, subject to lawful discretion of the authorities to quantify the exact amount. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Court directs that the impugned order dated 10.05.2023 passed by respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh, keeping in view the stay of conviction in Criminal Revision No. 45/2018, the minor nature of punishment under Rule 10(4) of the CCA Rules, 1966, with non-cumulative effect and principles of fairness, natural justice, and proportionality. 11. The respondents shall pass an appropriate reasoned order in respect of the claim of petitioner, including restoration of two annual increments in accordance with law. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this judgment. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Shayna