HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT 'BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 2365 of2§i)8 PETITIONER : A.S.Roy, Aged — 43 yeam, S/o Shri D.C.Roy, Working as Upper Divi§i011 Teacher At ~ Govt. H1gher Seccndary School Kharaia. District w Ra1garh (CG) R/o Gaushala Marg Kharsxa District Rzugarh (CG) VERSUS . State of Chhattasgarh, Through The Secretary Department of Scheduled Tnbe and Sbheduled Caste Development, Mantralava DKS Bhawail Ra1pur 2. The DirectOI, Depattmem of Scheduled Tube and Scheduled Caste Development, Chhamsgaxh, H Q Pt Ravishankar Shukla University Campus, Ralpur (CG) ' 3. The Clnef Executxve Officer Cum Ex-Ofl‘wxo é Addltional D1rector, Trlbal Development Ralgarh Dishict — Raigarh (C.G.) 4. The Assistam Commissioner, Tribal Development, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) WRIT PE'H’fION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. ' RESPONDENTS /\ lK Present Shn R K Keshaxwam Advocate for the petmoner Slm Y S Thakur Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents ’l‘ ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25 day of April, 2008 ' The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28. l2.2007 (Annexare P/l) passed by the Commissioner. Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Welfare, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, has tiled this petition challenging the validity of the said order whereby the punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect, passed by the disciplinary authority on 05.09.2001 (Annexure Pf2) has been modified to withholding two increments Without cumulative effect. Withholding two increments without cumulative effect falls within the purview of minor penalty but if the same is with cumulative effect} this becomes major penalty. The requirement for imposing minor penalty is ) not holding a proper regular departmental enquiry. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though proper disciplinary enquiry was conducted, but the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity of cross-examining some ofthe witnesses. I have perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto aiier hearing learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the appellate authority, atter having noticed some deficiency in the departmental enquiry, converted the major penalty to minor penalty, it is not necessary to interfere with the appeliate order passed by the appellate authority. Looking into the nature of charges which stands proved against the petitioner, no interference is warranted. Thus: this petition is dismissed as having no merit. However, it is open to the petitioner to agitate grant ofpay during suspension period before the competent authority as no order has been passed with regard to suspension, if so advised. M Satish K. Agnihotri ‘ Judge I 1 rune-t V sdj- i l l 1‘1 w. itw l x w l