1 2026:CGHC:20463 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3408 of 2019 1 - Jugraj Sahu S/o Late Garibdas Sahu Aged About 58 Years Head Constable No.1086, Rakshit Kendra Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh., 2 - Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Indrawati Bhawan Raipur Chhattisgarh., 3 - Inspector General Of Police, Durg Range, 32 Bunglow, Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh., 4 - Superintendent Of Police, Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Tandon appears on behalf of Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Dr. Surendra Dewangan, PL. (Single Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 01/05/2026 1. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 19.03.2019 passed by the Director General of Police dismissing Mercy Appeal of the petitioner, which was preferred against the order dated 23.11.2016 KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.05.02 17:33:09 +0530 2 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Durg Range, dismissing the original Appeal of the petitioner, which was preferred against the order dated 21.9.2016 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Durg, whereby penalty of reduction of pay equivalent to one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner. 2. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted as Constable in the PS Durg. On 21.1.2015, the petitioner was given Court duty. The petitioner and another Constable namely, Arun Choubey had taken one Tirath Yadav @ Chinnu to the Court in connection with Crime No.48/15 and presented him before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Durg. The said accused sought permission from the police personnel to answer the call of nature. Since the washroom of the Court premises was in bad condition, the said accused was taken to the Police Station Durg by the other Constable namely, Arun Choubey. The said Constable after handing over the accused to the Head Constable and other staff, returned to the Court where the petitioner was attending the Court proceedings. The said accused set himself ablaze by pouring kerosene on his body. He was taken to the hospital where he died on 22.1.2015. Thereafter, on 10.7.2015, the Sub Divisional Magistrate conducted an enquiry/investigation and ordered for institution of departmental enquiry against the officers who were present at the time of incident. Accordingly, the petitioner and said constable Arun Choubey were suspended. 3 3. The City Superintendent of Police, Durg, submitted an enquiry report finding the charge proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police imposed the punishment of reduction in pay equivalent to one increment with cumulative effect, against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Durg Range vide order dated 23.11.2016, against which Mercy Appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Director General of Police, which was also dismissed vide order dated 19.3.2019. Hence this petition. 4. Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Superintendent of Police, Durg was not justified in inflicting the penalty of reduction of pay equivalent to one increment with cumulative effect on the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 21.9.2016, 23.11.2016 and 19.3.2019 are liable to be quashed. He would rely upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Mohan Lal Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (WPS No.6060/2017, decided on 28.3.2025). 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would support the impugned orders. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 4 7. Admittedly, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings for his misconduct resulting in penalty of reduction of pay equivalent to one increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 21.9.2016 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Durg exercising its power conferred under Regulation 221 read with Regulation 214 of the Police Regulations. 8. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Regulation 221 of the Police Regulations which provides power to the Senior Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police by which they can impose punishment. The said Regulation reads as under:- “221. Powers of senior Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police.- An Assistant Inspector General or a Superintendent of Police shall exercise the following powers of punishments :- (a) Power to inflict any of the punishments specified in Regulation 214 to 217 on head constables and constables. (b) Power to inflict on Sub-Inspector 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 due. (c) Power to reduce the pay of Sub-Inspector and an Assistant Sub-Inspector. (c-i) Power to inflict the punishment of censure on Inspector. (d) Power to suspend and officer of the rank of constable to Inspector pending enquiry into his conduct. 5 9. The punishment to be imposed on the Sub Inspectors and Assistant Sub Inspectors has been defined in Regulation 214 of the CG Police Regulations which states as under:- “214.Punishments – 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) Withholding of promotion; (ii) Withholding of increments of pay including stoppage at an efficiency bar or stagnation allowance. (iii) 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. (iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government or to any fund maintained for the welfare of the Police by negligence or breach of orders. (v) Removal from the service, which does not disqualify from future employment. (vi) Dismissal from the service, which ordinarily disqualifies for future employment; (vii) Suspension is not punishment; (viii) Compulsory retirement.” 10. Regulation 214 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations prescribes various minor/major punishments which can be imposed without prejudice to the provisions of any law or any special order for the time being in force. 6 11. On perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it appears that by virtue of Regulation 221 of the Police Regulations, the Superintendent of Police has power to inflict on all ranks from Constables to Sub- Inspector and Assistant Sub Inspector any of 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 due. However, a careful perusal of the said Regulation would show that no power has been conferred on the Superintendent of Police to inflict a punishment of reduction of pay equivalent to one increment with cumulative effect, which is also apparent from the memo dated 10.10.2008 issued by the Director General of Police, which states as under:- “ पुलिस मुख्याय, छत्तीसगढ़ सिसवि ाइन्स, रायपुर – 492001 पुलिस विर्देश क्रमांक -04 क्रमांक-पुम/प्रशा/विजांच/1273/08 रायपुर, विर्देांक : 10/10/2008 प्रति , समस् पुलिस इकाइयाँ छत्तीसगढ़ विषय : े ृति& संचयी रूप से रोके का वियम विरु& आर्देेश जारी  करे बाब । कई प्रकरणों में अुशासविक अति2कारिरयों द्वारा विभागीय जांच में आरोप प्रमाणिण पाए जाे पर अपचारी पुलिस अति2कारिरयों के विरु& “ ” एक े ृति& संचयी रूप से रोके का र्देंड अथा “एक े ृति& एक ष: के लिए रोके जाे का र्देंड, सिजसका प्रभा ” संचयी होगा अति2रोविप विकए गया है, जो वियमाुकू  हीं है। कृ पया इस संबं2 में छत्तीसगढ़ पुलिस रेग्यूेश के पैरा 214 का 7 अोक करें, सिजसमें इस प्रकार के र्देंड का प्रा2ा हीं है। चूँविक पुलिस रेग्यूेश के पैरा 221 के अं ग: पुलिस अ2ीक्षक को इस प्रकार का र्देंड अति2रोविप करे का अति2कार हीं है, इस कारण माीय छत्तीसगढ़ उच्च न्यायाय द्वारा कई बार इस प्रकार के र्देंडार्देेश अपास् विकए गए हैं। इस संबं2 में माीय उच्च म न्यायाय द्वारा भी मध्यप्रर्देेश शास एं अन्य विरु& राति2का प्रसार्दे र्देुबे ( विर्देांक 25 अप्रै 1994) में उपरोक्तुसार र्देंडार्देेश अपास् विकया गया है। अ ः भविष्य में अुशासविक अति2कारी उपरोक्त वियमों के अुरूप काय:ाही करा सुवितिH करें। सही/- (विश्वरंज) पुलिस महाविर्देेशक 12. As such, it is quite evident that the Superintendent of Police has no power and jurisdiction to impose a punishment of reduction of pay equivalent to one increment with cumulative effect. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.9.2016 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Durg (Annexure-P/3) inflicting the subject penalty on the petitioner, the order dated 23.11.2016 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Inspector General of Police, Durg Range and the order dated 19.3.2019 passed by the Director General of Police dismissing the mercy appeal of the petitioner, are hereby set aside/quashed. The penalty so inflicted is modified and it is directed that the petitioner is imposed a penalty of reduction of pay equivalent to one increment with non-cumulative effect. 14. For the foregoing, the Writ Petition is allowed in part. Since the petitioner has already been retired from service, he will be entitled 8 to all consequential benefits, if any, in view of the modification of order of punishment as aforesaid. No costs. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Barve