1 CGHC010127162022 2026:CGHC:36773 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2676 of 2022 Anuj Kumar Gupta S/o Late Vijay Kumar Gupta Aged About 27 Years Presently Working On The Post of Head Constable (Batch No. 30) Posted At Police Station Ramanujganj District Bilaspur Ramanujgnaj Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Home Mahanadi Bhawan Atalnagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director General of Police Head Quarter Sector -19 Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Inspector General of Police Surguja Range Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintendent of Police Balrampur District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. RCS Deo, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the impugned order dated 25.2.2022 ANNEXURE P/1 passed by the respondent no.2. 2 10.2 That, Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to set aside of impugned order dated 4.4.2022 ANNEXURE P/2 issued by the respondent no.3 in respect of petitioner and declared the name of petitioner as eligible candidate for appearing in the departmental promotion examination 2022 for the post of Head Constable. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent no.3 to allow the petitioner for appearing in the departmental promotion examination 2022 for the post of Head Constable. 10.4 That, any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 25.02.2022 (Anenxure P/1) passed by respondent No. 2, whereby mercy appeal preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order dated 30.09.2020, was rejected. He would submit that the order dated 30.09.2020 passed by respondent No.4/Superintendent of Police is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and contrary to the letter dated 10.10.2008, as Superintendent of Police is not competent disciplinary authority to impose a major penalty. Since stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect amounts to a major penalty, the punishment imposed by the Superintendent of Police is without jurisdiction. 3. He would contend that the respondent No. 3 has declared the petitioner ineligible for the Departmental Promotion Examination solely on the basis of the aforesaid punishment; thus, the order passed by respondent No. 3 dated 04.04.2022 is not unsustainable. He would further contend that if the petitioner is not permitted to participate in the examination for promotion to the post of Head Constable, he will suffer irreparable loss and be deprived of his legitimate opportunity for promotion. He would rely upon the order of this Court passed in W.P.S. 3 No. 4809 of 2018, in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Suryavanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, wherein this Court has taken a similar view; thus, he would pray that petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before respondent authorities raising all his grievances and in turn the authorities concernd may be directed to decide the same in the light of decision rendered in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Suryavanshi (supra). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, when specific query was made by this Court, he fairly accepted the fact that Superintendent of Police has no authority of law to pass the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. This Court in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Suryavanshi (supra), while dealing with similar issue in paragraph No.5 held as under:- “5. In order to decide this case, it would be profitable to quote the relevant paragraphs No.5, 6 & 7 passed in WPS No. 3892 of 2015, Satyabhan Singh Thakur (supra), which reads as under: “5. In Anil Tiwari (supra), this Court, after carefully considering the provisions contained in Regulations 214, 215, 221 & 222, has held that power to impose punishment of withholding of increments of pay including stoppage at an efficiency bar or stagnation allowance as provided in sub-clause (iii) of Regulation 214 of the Regulations is not specific on the Superintendent of Police. Vide Regulation 221(b), which confers power on the Superintendent of Police to inflict on SI/ASI, the penalties specified in Regulation 214 (i) and (iv) does not include the power to impose penalty to withhold the increment of a SI and an ASI. This Court has further held that there is no mention of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect in Regulation 214. Thus, the same was 4 supplemented by the Executive Instruction in Memo No.Pu.Mu./23-B/2/915/96, dated 28-5- 1996 and in Memo No.Pu.Mu./2/Nama/S- 2/392/2000 Bhopal dated 24-4-2000, wherein it is clearly provided that imposition of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty. 6. Even otherwise, the effect and understanding of the power of Superintendent of Police with respect to imposing of major penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been considered by the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, and thereafter, Police Instructions No.4 has been issued on 10-10-2008 to the effect that under Regulation 221 the Superintendent of Police is not empowered to impose punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, therefore, such punishment should not be imposed by the Superintendent of Police. The said circular refers to the judgment rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Radhika Prasad Dubey. 7. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Anil Tiwari (supra) as well as the instructions issued by the DGP, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Accordingly, the imposition of punishment of one increment with cumulative effect in departmental enquiry proceedings and the order passed by the Superintendent of Police as well as the appellate order concerning the said departmental enquiry alone is quashed.” 6. From perusal of the documents, it appears that in view of the relevant provisions of the Police Regulations, the letter dated 10.10.2008 passed by respondent No.2, as well as the order passed in WPS No. 4809 of 2018, Sanjay Kumar Suryavanshi (supra), and the case of Anil Tiwari (supra), it is amply clear that Superintendent of Police has no authority of law to pass order in respect of withholding of increment with non- 5 cumulative effect in respect of the Constable cadre and such power vests with the competent higher authority. 7. Looking to the facts discussed above, the petitioner is permitted to make a detailed representation in the light of decision rendered in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Suryavanshi (supra) before respondent authorities and in turn, the authorities concerned are directed to consider and decide the same in an objective manner, preferably within a period of 90 days from today. 8. The authorities concerned shall take note of the decision rendered in Sanjay Kumar Suryavanshi (supra) while deciding the representation of the petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this writ petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim