IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. s No. O C) /2009 / PETITIONER Prameela Mandavi, D/o‘ Somnath Mandavi, Aged about 32 yaars, R/o. Qtr‘ N0. G—8, New Civil Lines, Mahasamund, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1] /State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Director General 0f Police, Police Headquarter, Raipur Chhattisgarh. (“C Inspector General 0f Police, Bastar Zone, Lalbagh, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) (W Superintendent of Police, North Bastar, Kanker, District Kanker (CG) wi 4] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ,3 wkg HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2107 of2009 PETITIONER : Prameela Mandavi. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PE! I l ION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shn' Manoj Paranjps, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.'I‘11ak1:1r, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents. ORDER ORAL) (Passed on 10 day of September, 2009) The petitioner impugns the order dated 12m March, 2009 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Inspector General of Police, Bastar Zone, whereby the order dated 30m April, 2007 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Superintendent of Police, North Bastar, Kanker, imposing punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative eifect has been upheld. 2. Shri Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the case on hand is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Anil Tiwarz‘ v. State of CG. & Othersl. Shri Y.S.Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents is not in a position to controvert the submission made by Shri Paranjpe. 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State ofMadhya Pradesh & Others v. Radhika PrasadDubef, held as under: RESPONDENTS “The view of the ' unal in quashing the reduction ofthe 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 the respondent entitled for consideration of promotion by the department committee as Circle Inspector after 1985, does not commend us. In term, there of a direction was issued to the departmental committee to review the case of the respondent. The View ofthe' Tribunal there on is obviously wrong. Amajor penalty continues to be a major penalty even though its a effect in minimifed to slip down to loss of emoluments for a shorter period. The Tribunal was therefore, wrong in directing the Bepartnieittal Promotion 1 2007 (2) CGLJ 35s 2 Civil Appeai No: 1232 or 1994 Committee to consider the case of the respondent for promotion as on 1985. We axe 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 edect 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. a Police Regulations. ” 4. This Court, inAm'l Tiwari (supra), observed as under: “11.....It is clear that the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh has no power of imposing penalty of “Censure” as specified in Regulation 214(i) and 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 thither direction as to whether or not the member of the Subordinate Police Service will earn increments of pay or the stagiation 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 on the Sub-Inspector and Assistant Sub Inspector. There is no mention of Withholding of one increment with cumulative effect in Regulation 214. Thus, the same was supplemented by the Executive Instructions in Memo No. Pu.Mu./23B/2/915/96, dated 28.5.1996 and in Memo No. Pu.Mu./1/1\Iama/s-2/392/2ooo Bhopal, Dated, 24th April, 2000, wherein it is clearly provided that imposition of withholding ofone increment with cumulative effect is a a major penalty.” 5. Thus, it was held that the Superintendent of Police has no power to impose major penalty under the provisions of regulation 221 read with 214 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation. Thus, the order dated 30m April, 2007 (Annexure P/2) passed by/the Superintendent of Police, North Bastar, Kanker is bad in law and without jurisdiction and as such, the same is quashed. The subsequent order dated 12m March, 2009 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Inspector General of Police, Bastar Zone, is also quashed. As a result and for the discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefits flowing from quashing ofthe impugned orders. No order asto costs. / Sd/.- Satish K. Agnihotri . Judge k