\° HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR pE'rmoNER WRTT PETmON_fSl J^a 6547 of2007 Gautam Patel. RESPO^s[DENTS VERSUS State ofC.G. WRITPEm'lQNjUNDER ,'UtTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Anuhotri. J. ^- Present:Shri S.P.Kale, Advocate forthe Betitioner. Shri V.V.S.Moorthy, Deputy Advocate General for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 30"' day of March, 2010) Challenge in this petition is to fhe order dated 05.09.2005 (Aimexure P/5) whereby the petitioner has been punished with withholding ofthree annual increments without cumulative effect on Ihe ground that the petitioner has written directly to the minister concemed in respect of his transfer, which amounts to misconduct under the provisions ofRule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 aad the order dated 11.01.2007 (Armesau-e P/7) whereby. the appeal preferred by ffae petitioner, has been dismissed without assigning any reason. Shri Kale, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioaer submits that the State aulhorities have taken a discriminatory and arbitrary approach in dealing with the case of Ihe petitioner as one other person namely G.L.Rahi, Superintendent, Land Records, Raipur who was also similarly situated, has written a lettertofhe minister concenied directly. The same mistake was cormnitted by the petitioner on 03.04.2005 (Annexure P/2). On receipt ofthe show cause notice, the petitioner tendered his apology on 25.06.2006 (Armexure P/4) for having committed Ihe mistake of writing to the minister directiy. Further, the petitioner has stated that the said inistake would not be repeated m fature. The application of G.L.Rahi, tendering apology as the petitioner has tendered in this ease, was accepted and minor punishment of "waming was imposed upon him but the petitioner was punished wifh wrthholding of fhree increments without cumulative efiect. Thus, this is a clear case of discrimmation. arbitrariness and malafide. ^ 3. Qn the other hand, Shri Moorthy, leamed Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State submits that the case ofthe present petitioner is different than that of G.L.Rahi as in that case, the officer has tendered apoiogy after admitting the mistake. But in the present ease, the petitioner has nottendered apoiogy. 4. On perosal ofthe letter dated 25.06.2005 (Annexure P/4), it is evident that the petitioner has tendered his apology after having written to the minister concemed with an assurance that in future, this conduct would not recur. Thus, the contention of the respondents that the other case was distinguishable, is not correct. It appears that it is a case of clear discrimination while treating the ofHcer. Even otherwise, if the officer has written to the minister concemed, this is not such a serious misconduct wherein strict punishment of withliolding of three increments is imposed. After giving show cause notice, the petitioner ought to have been treated like other of&cer by giving him a wammg, which even otherwise, the petitioner has ah-eady given in writing that he would not repeat the mistake in future. 5. Having considered all the facts situation ofthis case, this Court is oftlie view that imposition of punishment of withholding tliree increments without cumulative etfect is disproportionate to the oftence of misconduct ifany, committed by the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the order 05.09.2005 (Amiexure P/5) and 11.01.2007 (Anaexure P/7) are quashed. However, the respondent aufhorities are at liberty to wam the petitioner not to repeat such mistake in foture, if so advised. 7. The writ petition is allowed. No order asto costs. j- Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge