1 CGHC010414092022 2026:CGHC:36526 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9041 of 2022  Shekhar Sinha S/o Late Govardhan Lal Sinha Aged About 54 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Patel Badi, Gaurav Path Road, Dhamtari, Police Station Kotwali, Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director General Of Police (D. G. P.) Police Headquarter, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Inspector General Of Police Raipur Range, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Superintendent Of Police District Dhamtari, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Pradeep Kumar Presently Working On The Post Of A. S. I. In Police Station Keregaon, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 6. Premlal Sinha Presently Working On The Post Of A. S. I. In Office Of Superintnedent Of Police, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 7. Amit Singh Presently Working On The Post Of A. S. I. In Police Station Arjuni, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 8. Sukhchain Sahu Presently Working On The Post Of A. S. I. In Reserve Police Line, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 17.8.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to quash/set aside the impugned order (Annexure P/1), Dated: 14.10.2021, issued by the inspector General of Police, Raipur Range (C.G.). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the order (Annexure P/2) Dated: 31.12.2021, to an extent the name of the petitioner may be included/considered in the said list on the top of Sr. No. 06, Pradip Kumar. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may be kind enough to direct the respondent authorities to mark the petitioner as eligible for, and to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector from the post of head Constable in the respondent department with all consequential benefits. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the Hon'ble 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 That, this Hon'ble Court may be kindly be pleased to quash circular Dated 24.04.2000, issued by the Additional Director General of Police, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh which is already annexed as [Annexure R/1 of the Return on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4 (State)], in the interest of justice. 3 2) Facts of present case are that petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Constable in respondent-department vide order dated 9.1.1991 and he was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year 2008. Vide order dated 3.5.2021, Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range inflicted penalty of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect upon the petitioner. Subsequently, colleagues of the petitioner were considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector on 31.12.2021 but name of petitioner was not considered on the ground that he was inflicted with afore-stated penalty. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that name of petitioner was not considered for promotion on the ground that petitioner was inflicted with penalty of stoppage of one increment with non- cumulative effect and State in its return has placed reliance on circular issued by the Police Headquarters of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh dated 24.4.2000 wherein it is stated that as per Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in matter of State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Radhika Prasad Dubey passed in Civil Appeal No. 1232/1994, withholding increments whether with or without cumulative effect, constitutes a major penalty. He further submits that in Radhika Prasad Dubey (supra), there is no such observation, rather there is observation to the effect that imposition of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and the same cannot be imposed by Superintendent of Police as per Regulation 221 read with 214 of 4 the M.P. Police Regulations. He also submits as penalty of withholding one increment with non-cumulative effect has been imposed on petitioner, therefore the circular dated 24.4.2000 would not attract and the respondent authorities committed error of law while excluding the petitioner from the zone of consideration for promotion to the next higher post. He prays to allow this petition. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that penalty of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect was inflicted upon the petitioner, which is a major penalty as per circular dated 24.4.2000, therefore the action on the part of respondent authorities in rejecting the candidature of petitioner for promotion is just and proper. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6) Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Anil Tiwari Versus State of Chhattisgarh and Others passed in WP No. 4016 of 2004 extracted the preposition of law enunciated in Radhika Prasad Dubey (supra). The relevant paragraph 12 is reproduced herein- below :- 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 25th April, 1994 passed in State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Radhika Prasad Dubey (Civil Appcal No. 1232 of 1994) held as under:- "The view of the tribunal in quashing the 5 reduction of the appellant to a lower stage in time scale of pay for two years, later reduced to one year by the appellate officer terming it as a minor penalty equivalent to withholding of increments and as a sequator holding the respondent entitled for consideration of promotion by the department committee as Circle Inspector after 1985, does not commend to us. In term, there of a direction was issued to the departmental committee to review the case or the respondent. The view of the Tribunal there on is obviously wrong. A major penalty continues to be a major penalty even though its a effect in minimized to slip down to loss of emoluments for a shorter period. The Tribunal was therefore, wrong in directing the Departmental Promotion Committee to consider the cases of respondent for promotion as on 1985. We are therefore of the view that the said committee is not obliged to consider the case of respondent as directed. It is therefore, evident that imposition of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and the same cannot be imposed by the Superintendent of Police as per Regulation 221 read with 214 of the M.P. Police Regulations. From a bare reading of this, it is clear that imposition of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty. 7) The circular dated 24.4.2000 issued by the Police Headquarters, State of Madhya Pradesh states that withholding increments whether with or without cumulative effect, constitutes a major penalty and such observation appears to be contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Radhika Prasad Dubey (supra). 6 8) In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered view, cumulative withholding of a single increment serves as a major penalty, whereas non-cumulative withholding is a minor penalty. The application of the circular dated 24.04.2000 to the petitioner's case is ex-facie erroneous and runs contrary to the ratio laid down in Radhika Prasad Dubey (supra). 9) Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. 10) Respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. As there was lapse on the part of respondent authorities in misinterpreting the law laid down in the matter of Radhika Prasad Dubey (supra) and misconstruing the circular dated 24.4.2000, therefore petitioner shall be entitled for all benefits attached to the promotion post from the date his juniors were promoted. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.08.19 10:47:23 +0530