1 2026:CGHC:26135 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7739 of 2022 1 - Davendra Sahu S/o Late Radhe Lal Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o H. No. 4989 Hanuman Vatika Bhatgaon, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, 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 Raipur Range, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police Raipur Range, District - Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Senior Superintendent Of Police Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Anadi Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/s : Shri R.C.S. Deo, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 25.6.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: NIRMALA RAO 2 “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to quash/set aside the punishment order Dated: 17.03.2022, issued by the Director General of Police, Raipur, (C.G.) (P/1) & all consequential charges and inquiry. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside order Dated 14.01.2021 issued by the Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range, Raipur (C.G.) (P/2). 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside order Dated 14.10.2020, issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur (C.G.). 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. 10.5 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant notional seniority, previous years annual increments and may consider the case for petitioner for grant of promotion to the higher posts as if the impugned punishment orders were never in existence.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders imposing penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect deserve to be set aside as the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by arbitrariness and are not supported by legally admissible evidence. It is contended that though the charge against the petitioner was of playing cards while on duty, 3 the evidence adduced during the departmental enquiry does not establish the charge. On the contrary, the witnesses examined in the enquiry have supported the petitioner's defence that he had merely intervened to prevent others from playing cards and had not himself indulged in any misconduct. He would submit that the charges levelled against the petitioner and the quantum of punishment are disproportionate. It is also submitted that the punishment order dated 14.10.2020 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police is beyond his powers conferred under Regulation 221 read with 214 & 215 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations and therefore, the said order is without jurisdiction and suffers from a patent legal defect. It is further submitted that the Appellate Order dated 14.1.2021 passed by the Inspector General of Police and the order dated 17.3.2022, issued by the Director General of Police are without independent application of mind and merely affirm the illegal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Meetha Lal Jangde vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., in WA No. 711 of 2025, wherein it has been held that the punishment of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and the disciplinary authority must possess the requisite jurisdiction under the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations to impose such punishment. Paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 14 & 15 read as under: 10. At this stage, it would be appropriate to quote the 4 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:- (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. 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 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 5 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, 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 6 increment with cumulative effect is impermissible for authorities lacking such power, further supports this interpretation. 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 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.” 3) Learned counsel appearing for the State does not dispute that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in WA No. 711 of 2025. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) Considering the fact that the alleged video concerning the petitioner was never made part of the evidence and was never produced during the inquiry and further considering that the impugned order dated 14.10.2020 (Annexure-P/3) issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police under Regulation 221 of the Police Regulations is without jurisdiction, the Appellate order dated 14.1.2021 (Annexure-P/2) issued by the Inspector General of Police and the order dated 17.3.2022 (Annexure-P/1) issued by 7 the Director General of Police, which merely affirm the illegal order, are consequently quashed and hereby set aside. 6) Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi