1 CGHC010009512022 2026:CGHC:36229 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 472 of 2022 1 - Pawan Banjare S/o Dhani Ram Banjare Aged About 31 Years Posted As Constable No. 386, R/o Police Line, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police Police Range Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police District Balodabazar, District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Yogesh Chandra, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 14/08/2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 16-09-2020 and 29-09-2021 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to make payment of increment to the petitioner and also salary for the period of departmental enquiry which was taken as No Work No Pay. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the departmental enquiry in respect of petitioner. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to held the entire departmental proceeding as illegal and violative of Rule 18 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules-1966. 10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner and Anurag Kosariya, who were working on the post of Constable in the Police Department, were served with a common article of charge dated 24.4.2018, wherein it was alleged that, on the night of 25.2.2018, they had received a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from the complainant, Meena Sahu, and that their conduct was in violation of paragraphs 64(2), 64(3), 64(4), and 64(10) of the Police Regulations. The petitioner and the other delinquent employee submitted their replies to the show-cause notice, and thereafter, the disciplinary authority appointed the Enquiry Officer. After a full-fledged enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect upon the petitioner and the other delinquent employee vide order dated 18.2.2019. The Inspector 3 General of Police, however, disagreed with the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority and imposed the penalty of termination from service upon the petitioner vide order dated 8.1.2020. The petitioner challenged the order dated 8.1.2020 by filing an appeal before the State Government, which was partly allowed, and the penalty of termination from service was modified to the penalty of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect. Further, the period of absence was directed to be treated as “No Work No Pay.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing by the Enquiry Officer and that there was a violation of Rule 18 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short, “the Rules, 1966”). He would contend that the disciplinary action was not taken against the petitioner and the other delinquent employee in a common proceeding. It is also argued that respondent No. 1 committed an error of law in treating the period of absence as “No Work No Pay.” He would pray that the petition be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He would contend that the disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner and the other delinquent employee strictly in accordance with Rule 18 of the Rules, 1966. He would submit that common departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the other delinquent employee in respect of similar allegations. He would further contend that respondent No. 1, vide the impugned order, imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative 4 effect, and the period of absence was rightly treated as “No Work No Pay.” He would submit that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity by the disciplinary authority, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. It is pleaded and argued that there was a violation of Rule 18 of the Rules, 1966, which reads as under: “18. Common proceedings.—(1) Where two or more Government servants are concerned in any case, the Governor or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such Government servants may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding : Provided that the powers conferred on the Governor under this rule shall in case of judicial officers, be exercised by the Chief Justice. Proviso added by Notification No. 06-3-98-3-I, dated 20th May, 1998. Note. - If the authorities competent to impose the penalty of dismissal on such Government servants are different, an order for taking disciplinary action in a common proceeding may be made by the highest of such authorities with the consent of the others : (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 12, any such order shall specify : (i) the authority which may function as the disciplinary authority for the purpose of such common proceeding; (ii) the penalties specified in Rule 10 which such disciplinary authority shall be competent to impose; 5 and (iii) whether the procedure laid down in Rule 14 and Rule 15 or Rule 16 shall be followed in the proceeding.” 7. A bare reading of the above-quoted Rule makes it clear that the disciplinary authority may take action against the concerned Government servants in a common proceeding. 8. In the present case, the disciplinary authority took action against the petitioner and the other delinquent employee in a common proceeding, and the penalty was imposed by a common order. Therefore, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. Although the Inspector General of Police imposed the penalty of termination from service, respondent No. 1, in appeal, modified the said order and reduced the penalty from termination from service to stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect, and further directed that the period of absence be treated as “No Work No Pay.” Further, the petitioner has not raised any legal ground warranting interference with the order impugned. 9. A perusal of the documents on record shows that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing and that the impugned order was passed strictly in accordance with Rule 18 of the Rules, 1966. Therefore, no case is made out for interference. 10. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi