1 2025:CGHC:56934-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 711 of 2025 Meetha Lal Jangde S/o Late Dariyav Lal Jangde Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Purani Basti, Karhi, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police (D.G.P.) Police Headquarters, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Range, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Of Police Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 5 - Ishwar Sahu Posted As Constable, Reserve Centre, P.S. Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr.A.S.Rajput, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 4/State : Mr.Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR 2 24.11.2025 1. Heard Mr.A.S.Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State. 2. As the case of respondent No. 5 is also identical to that of the present appellant, we deem it proper not to issue notice to him. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, as reflected in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, the grievance of respondent No. 5 is identical to that of the appellant, and respondent No. 5 has supported the appellant’s case. 4. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5089/2021 by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 5. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the appellant is holding the post of Constable as he was appointed vide order dated 04.09.2006. An article of charge was issued against the appellant and respondent No.5 with the allegation that a prisoner escaped from their custody as they were taking him on their bike, whereas a warrant was issued to take the prisoner through public transport. The Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed, and a departmental inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted its inquiry report, and thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, exercising the power of the disciplinary 3 authority, inflicted the punishment of a penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 23.09.2019. An appeal was preferred by the appellant and it was dismissed vide order dated 01.01.2020. On account of the punishment inflicted by the respondent authorities, the appellant's name could not be considered for promotion to the post of Head Constable. 6. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred writ petition, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that submits that the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the facts and law applicable to the case. It is contended that the Superintendent of Police (respondent No. 4) had no authority under the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations to impose the major penalty of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Regulation 214 does not contemplate such a punishment, and Regulation 221 does not empower the Superintendent of Police to impose a major penalty of this nature. Reliance is placed on the DGP’s circular dated 10.10.2008, specifically directing that stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is not permissible under the Regulations. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant and one constable, Ishwar Sahu, were assigned the duty of escorting a prisoner on 30.08.2017, but no sanctioned vehicle, accompanying head constable, or 4 necessary funds were provided by the department, compelling them to use a personal vehicle. Although the prisoner briefly escaped, he was apprehended within an hour. These facts were brought to the notice of the authorities, but were ignored. It is argued that the appellant, being a low-ranking constable, has been subjected to harsh and disproportionate punishment without proper hearing. The order dated 23.09.2019 imposing a major penalty is without jurisdiction and unsupported by reasons. The appellate authority (Inspector General of Police) upheld the illegal order mechanically, without independent application of mind. The mercy petition before the DGP also remains pending. It is further submitted that the major penalty, though illegal, has been used to declare the appellant ineligible for promotion to the post of Head Constable under the advertisement dated 07.08.2021, while the similarly situated constable Ishwar Sahu who accepted the punishment and did not challenge it has been treated as eligible. This discriminatory treatment amounts to victimization for having questioned an unlawful order. The appellant is being effectively punished twice for the same alleged misconduct. Reference is placed on the decision of this Court in Anil Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2007 (2) CGLj 368, wherein it was held that withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and cannot be imposed by the Superintendent of Police under Regulations 214 and 221. Reliance is also placed on the DGP’s circular dated 10.10.2018 and the notification dated 5 12.06.2008 mandating that lower-rank officials should not be subjected to harsh punishments as a first measure. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed, and the impugned order dated 22.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5089/2021, as well as the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by respondent No. 4 / Superintendent of Police, Mungeli, and the order dated 01.01.2020 passed by respondent No. 3 / Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, District Bilaspur, deserve to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, leaned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 supports the impugned orders. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by respondent No.4 / Superintendent of Police, Mungeli and the order dated 01.01.2020 passed by respondent No.3 / Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, District Bilaspur and other documents appended with writ appeal. 10. At this stage, it would be appropriate to quote the relevant provisions of the C.G. Police Regulations which state as under:- "214. Punishment - Kinds of - Without prejudice to the provisions of any law or any special orders for the time being in force, the following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed upon any member holding a post in a Subordinate Police Service:- 6 (i) Censure. (ii) Withholding of promotion. (iii) Withholding of increments of pay including stoppage at an efficiency bar or stagnation allowance. (iv) Reduction to a lower post or time scale or reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further direction as to whether or not the member of the Subordinate Police Service will earn increments of pay or the stagnation allowance, as the case may be, during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the further increments of his pay or stagnation allowance. 215. Punishment of non-gazetted officers.- In addition to the above, the following penalties may be imposed on non-gazetted officers:- (a) Fine to any amount not exceeding a month's pay. (b) Removal from any office of distinction or special emolument. (c) Supersession. 221. Power of S.P. - An Assistant Inspector General or a Superintendent exercises the following powers of punishment:- (a) Power to inflict any of the punishments specified in Regulations 214 to 217 on head constables and constables. (b) Power to inflict on Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors, the penalties specified in Regulation 214 (i) and (iv) or in Regulation 215 (a) and (b) or to 7 withhold the increment of a Sub-Inspector and an Assistant Sub-Inspector for a period of one year from the date on which it falls due. (c) Power to reduce the pay of Sub-Inspector and an Assistant Sub Inspector (c-1) Power to inflict the punishment of censure on Inspectors. (d) Power to suspend any non-gazetted officer of police pending inquiry into his conduct.” 222. Power of D.I.G. - A Deputy Inspector General exercise the following powers of punishment:- (a) Power to suspend any non-gazetted officers pending enquiries into their conduct. (b) Power to inflict any of the punishment specified in Regulations 216 and 217 on head constables and constables. (c) Power to inflict on Head Constable, Constables, Assistant Sub Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors and officers of equivalent ranks any of the punishments specified in Regulations 214 and 215. (d) Power to inflict on Subedar, Assistant Police Prosecutors, Police Prosecutors, Inspectors and Officers of equivalent ranks any of the punishments specified in Regulations 214 and 215. other than the punishments for removal, dismissal or compulsory retirement from service." 11. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the punishment of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect, 8 imposed upon the appellant by the Superintendent of Police, Mungeli vide order dated 23.09.2019, is in excess of the authority vested in him under the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations. 12. Regulation 214 classifies withholding of increments with cumulative effect as a major penalty. Regulation 221, which delineates the disciplinary powers of the Superintendent of Police, does not authorize the imposition of such a major penalty upon a Constable. The DGP’s circular dated 10.10.2008, clarifying that stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is impermissible for authorities lacking such power, further supports this interpretation. 13. The record also reveals that the appellant and another constable were compelled to use a personal vehicle for escorting a prisoner due to non-availability of a departmental vehicle, accompanying staff, or requisite funds. The prisoner, though having momentarily fled, was apprehended within an hour. These mitigating circumstances were not duly considered by the disciplinary authority. 14. The order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the Superintendent of Police is thus without jurisdiction and suffers from a patent legal defect. The appellate order dated 01.01.2020 passed by the Inspector General of Police merely affirms the illegal order without independent application of mind, rendering it unsustainable. 15. Learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, failed to appreciate the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Superintendent 9 of Police to impose the major penalty in question and did not properly consider the settled legal position and binding circulars. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 16. The consequence of the illegal major penalty has further prejudiced the appellant by rendering him ineligible for consideration for promotion, whereas the similarly situated constable has been treated differently. This differential treatment only compounds the prejudice caused by the illegal order. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ appeal allowed. The impugned order dated 22.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5089/2021, the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by respondent No. 4 / Superintendent of Police, Mungeli, and the order dated 01.01.2020 passed by respondent No. 3 / Inspector General of Police, Bilaspur Range, District Bilaspur, are hereby set aside. The respondents are at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu