I Jsltayh? l?|p?l LZ.Z/97.Z •a^ifeK? UJPUK? icbiyir? oy /ia^in lnlPlS>lt»?.UOP ^ ('lt'fi) ^l&ln—IPInJ^lfeln cbiaygiR I^PJ^ —tej^l£l<fe '<ys^K my£ -e ('lt'fi) llnTrM^—IPInJ ^ 'liv.^ llnTrNft <bKy>yi9k jj^£ -Izj^palcfc '(t>K)|^yi3k tM^jTi -Z (-il.-fi) ^hlX-IPInJ t?Plh»Tt »>P]'h (t-H>ll&ri) '*>ay.yi3k H-PjTi - IMS i-^iifc »>l^^^yuln 'l. ,>> jpcblcblajll?' SbWbj ('lt'fl) N'Rl&ln -li^J^ 'y^k^ P|j}.9t» N'Rlnt?IM^ D±UB 'N'RlnhlMt- •\K-~^h ^"hll-P^JS) ya^i^ph kift -y^my 'ja^ ^l? fi£i bl^ 1±S.^ Jnlt^UK Sl^ Plhl^lR ca's) oioe / |, /, qq"°N (s) -d'M ('le.'S^ ^K^IW^ ®lpl.?.(^tan h>ioih>ir?o tnp h>^o|o|M> ~^3\^D >. T < .»s®s' /.^^*7 .' *•:'>"" -A^ •°• a. ..-:-^^€f^^ ^"'l.-^yi^-? t'"< ^' ^•%^l^ o ^s^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATn'SGARH AT BILASPUR WRrTPE'rmQN_(S)_No.6674of201p PETmONER al VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofC.hhattisgarh & Others. WRQ' PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONS'nTUTION Of INTMA SB: Hon'-Me Shri Sattsh K. Agiuhotri, J. Present: Shri Rajendra Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Siiri Sushil Dubey, Govei-mnent Advocate for the State. (Passed on 24th day ofJanuar}', 2011) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to promote liim on fhe post of Head Coiistable "A" as the petitioner has been fbund successfiil in the departniental promotion exammation onthe basis ofselect list. The brieffacts, in nutshell, as projected by tlie petitioner, are tliat fhe petitioner namely Chhatrapal Singh participated in tlie depai-tmental promotion examination for promotion to Ihe post of Head Constabie "A" and in the select list, bis name fmds a place at serial No.2 (Annexure P/l). Thereafter. the petitioner could not be promoted to fiie post ofHead Constable "A". Tiius, tliis petition. Leamed counsel appeai-mg for the petitioner submits ttiat there is no reason asto why the petitioner should not be promoted to tlie higher post vvhen he has beea selected in tlie departaiental promotion exammatjon. On the other'hand, Shri J.Xibev. leamed Govenmient Advocate appeai-ing tbr the State submits tfaat the promotion of the Head Constabie is subject to the certain conditions. One of the conditioiis, inter alia, is if a departmental enquiry or any criminal case is pending or a major penalty has been imposed on the employee, the employee/petitioner would not be promoted to the hi.e.iier post. In the case on hand, by order dated 23/08/2008 (Aimexure P/4), the petitioner has been punished with major penalty witiiholding one ^"\ 6. 9. .1.0. ixicrement wiAi cumulative effect. The withholduig of one increment with cumulative eflect falls within the defitiition of major penatty I have heard leained counsel appearing for the parties, perused the p]eadings and the documents appended there to. There is no dispute that ttie petitioner participated in tlie departmenta! promotion examiaation for promotion to tfae post of Head Constable "A" and he was selected also. However, in tenns ofciause 2 ofthe order dated 03/08/2009 (Annexure P/3), he could not have been promoted to fhe higher post on the ground that the major penalty was imposed by the order dated 23/08/2008 (Anaexure P/4) before that a departmental enquiry was pending consideration against tfae petitioner. There is no other dispute that the withholding of one increment witli cumulative eflfect is not a major penalty. Contention of leamed counse! appearine for the petitioner that the wifhholding ofone incremei'rt. witfa cumuiative efiect was not done for wifhholding the promotion ofthe petitioner, is noticed lo be rejected on a simple ground that in case of penalty, it is not aecessary to specifv asto whether it is for the pui-pose ofpromotion oniv. Foi- the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is ao merit in tiiis case. Accordingly, the vvrit petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. ftAl- ^^- ^feo^ S»^^e