1 2026:CGHC:22226 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4723 of 2022 1 - Jaduram Baghel S/o Poduram Baghel Aged About 48 Years Occupation- Assistant Sub Inspector, P.S. Mardoom, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, R/o Atal Bihari Bajpai Ward, Dharampura No. 1, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Office Of Inspector General Of Police Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police Jagdalpur, Bastar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Utkarsh Shriwas, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Somkant Verma, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board NIRMALA RAO 2 12.05.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be called for the record. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be direct the respondent authority to issue a fresh promotion list in which the name of the petitioner is mention. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be direct the respondent authorities allow to Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh order dated 20.09.2021 which is related to non cumulative effect, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable on 10.4.1995 and was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector on 12.12.2009. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the penalty of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect was inflicted by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 15.1.2021. The name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in its meeting dated 11.5.2021 but has been kept in a sealed cover envelop. 3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the minor penalty of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative 3 effect was inflicted upon the petitioner and period of five years has already elapsed; therefore, the respondent authorities may be directed to open sealed cover envelop and consider the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would argue that according to the Standard Operative Procedure (SOP) 2002, if name of a Police Official is kept in a sealed cover envelop on account of initiation of departmental enquiry or criminal proceedings, the said envelop shall not be opened if such an employee is inflicted with penalty in the departmental enquiry or is punished in a criminal case. He would contend that in the departmental enquiry the petitioner was inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect, therefore, according to the prescribed procedure, sealed cover envelop cannot be opened by the Departmental Promotion Committee. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) The relevant clause 3(2) of SOP 2002 is reproduced herein below: “3(2) यादी अनुशासनिनुक क्቟ वाही क परिणामस्वारूप शासक प सवाक प कई शाቜኌस् लगाई जा ही अथवा उसक निवारु्ቍ अपधि$क अभि&्቟ जानु म' उस दोषी प्቟ जा ही  उस ቜኌस्थधि म' मही बं+दो भिलफाफा खोल नु क आवाश्क 4 नुही ही, अथ  भिलफाफा भिलफाफा' म' खो निनुष्कषी प क्቟ वाही नुही1 क जा्቟गा । अ3 ऐस ቜኌस्थधि म' उसक पदोन्नुधि क ममल प, समन््቟3 उस प आनिप शाቜኌस् क ध््቟नु म' खो हु, अगाल निवा&गा ्቟ पदोन्नुधि सधिमधि म' निवाचा निक्቟ जा्቟गा।" 7) A bare reading of the above-quoted provision would make it clear that if a government servant has been convicted in a criminal case or has been inflicted with a penalty in departmental proceedings, a sealed cover envelop pertaining to such an employee would not be opened, and his name would be considered for promotion in the subsequent departmental promotion proceedings. 8) In the present case, the petitioner has been inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect, therefore, the sealed cover envelop cannot be taken into consideration to consider his name for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. 9) In the result, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi