1 CGHC010258872021 2026:CGHC:32256 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5767 of 2021  David Son Minz S/o Late L. D. Minz Aged About 38 Years R/o Godhanpur, (Behind Maheshwar Temple), Ward No. 5, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Official Address – Constable Batch no. 336, Chowki Koria, P.S. Chirmiri, District Koria, (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Superintendent of Police, Koria, District Koria, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, Advocate For State : Ms. Saumya Shrama, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.07 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned provision of SOP by which only five years rewards and punishments are considered and previous service records are being omitted without any cogent reason. 10.2 That, Honble Court may kindly be pleased to order for promoting Petitioner even if he missed Departmental promotion exam as it happened due to The State's fault. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.07.28 14:46:58 +0530 2 of the case.” 2. Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, Advocate would contend that name of the petitioner for promotion from post of Constable to Head-Constable has not been considered on account of penalty of censure inflicted by the respondent authorities. He would contend that the first time, penalty of censure was inflicted on 05.06.2017, thereafter on 25.03.2020, then 04.04.2020 and lastly on 13.06.2020. He would contend that according to the Standard Operating Procedure(SOP) issued by the department, the life of such penalty was five years and said period has already expired. He would submit that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer would oppose. 4. Heard. 5. Having considered the fact that last penalty of censure was inflicted upon the petitioner on 13.06.2020 and since then 5 years have been passed, therefore, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head-Constable, if already not considered. The petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation before the respondent No. 3 within a period of 15 days, and in turn, the authority concerned is directed to take decision within further period of 45 days. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant