» ?v<'~^"^ B IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR WRITPETITIONNO./^3-f5 /06 PETITIONER •\^^- y y ^w^ A^ ^yr' ^•' .<?• .6°-®vy Ram Sahu S/d '^^ffi-Sao Aged,about 56 years ,0ccupation- Assistant Sub Inspector Police StatiCjo.s Lailunga Tahsil-Gharghora, Dist- Raigarh (C.G) VERSUS RESPONDENTS State ofChhattisgarh, Department OfHome (Police) Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G) .<* .^a<-,-'/ ^ r"".^l&>" >-;• l>- •l.-l ^ 2. Director General ofPolice Police HQ, Raipur (C.G) 3. SuperintendentofPoIice Dist-Raigarh(C.G) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT^QRDEROTJ^IRECTION.TQ DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. DETAILS OF THE PETITION. ts' •3~ HIGH COURT OFGHHATTISGARH AT BltASPUR SinaleBench: Hon'bleShriManjndraMohanShrwastava.J. PETmoNER WRITPETITION(StNoA350ffi006 Anant Ram Sahu RESPONDENTS Versus •V • .' .• •• ' •' .".' ' • '•".".'.•'• :''' State of Chhattisgarh and others IWRII-i^gmoNmyNDE^^ 22&a27 OF THE ^ONSITZffilC>N::l@KlNDI^i:gi^%i^ ': .' ' : ! : Present: - Shri K.N. NaFlde^HteellCTthelpetitioner, ShriV.V. S. Murthy,I9y. ftdvccate S^neral with Shri SatistiGupta.GQvt.AdvoeatefiarlheState. IOIWL'£>RDER..:;;'':::: :'.^-'::'.. (Passedon 20ul,»uly,2010) .'..-.. -: '•"" .'..••:• ' ' • '"' .. • .. .. '. . ' ' l'- ••'•: ''• •'•• ' . ."• ' . : " . '••• '.. Bythis petition,under Article 226/227 oftheCtinstitutionof India, the petitjoner seeks (o assail tegatity aiid validity of brder dated 26.05.2006 (Annexure P-1) asatsoorderdated ^.06,2006 (Annexyre P-2) passed by ttieseeond respondent. 2. By order dated 26;055006, a Itet ofeligible persons found fit for prorootion has been issued and the petitipner is aggrieved by the same, as it does not eontain the name of the petitioner. Order/communication dated ^.06.2(5(» reads that as the petitionerWasrKrtfoundfitforpr<OTiotion,jnviewoftheprovisions contained in SOP No.22,he wasdeclared unfit; 3. Petitioner Wc working as Asstt. Sub Inspeetor of Police and was expeeting proinotionF t<x the next higher post of Sub Inspector. Order dated 26^)5.2006 contained name pf per^ans -2- junior to the petitioner, meaning thereby that the petitioner was not found fit for the promotion. The communication made subsequently on 29.06.2006 states that he was not found fit for promotion. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that denial of promotion to the petitioner is illegal and contrary to the provisions contained in Potice Headquarter Guidelines, SOP No.22 of 2002 dated 13.03.2002. It is submitted that provision contained in Clause 3-Athereofon ajust and proper interpretation would mean that in a case where major penatty has been imposed during last five years, then only the petitioner could be held unfit for promotion. Though, the petitioner was subjected to departmental enquiry, which conctuded in imposition of penalty of reduction equivalent to one increment with non cumulative effect only for a period of one year, treating the same as major penalty, the petitioner was found unfit for promotion, which is iltegal and arbitrary, 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that punishment which has been imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 27.05.2004 (Annexure P-3) tantamounts to a minor penalty onty and could not be treated as a major penalty as it is not covered under any of the clauses v to x of Rule 10 of CG Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules of 1966). In order to substantiate this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon f^ ^ "i V: t ^i^^ ^ ^ /' -3- the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kuhvant Sinah Gill vs. State of Punjab reported in M.P. Labour and Service Law Reporter, 1991^480. 6. On the other hand, submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is of reduction to a lower stage of pay in the pay scale and therefore, irrespective of whether it is cumulative or non-cumutative or for a specified period, it is major penalty as specifled in Rute-10 (v) of theRules.1966. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this aspect was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhva Pradesh & others vs. Radhika Prasad Dubev. Civil Appeal No.1232 of 1994, S.L.P (C) 14501 of 1990 decided on 23.04.1994, a copy of which has been placed on record along with application for taking additional document on record as Annexure R-2. 8. It is not in dispute that for the purposes of making promotion, promotion policy contained in S.O.P. No.22 of 2002 dated 13.3.2002 (Annexure R-1) is applicable with reference to the promotion.which is subject matter ofthis petition. A perusal of Clause 3-A of S.O.P, No.22 of 2002 would show that where an employee has suffered major penalty in the last five years or where his integrity is doubtful, he would be held unfit for promotion. Said circular does not specity category of major ^v penalties. Therefore, it is necessary to look into the provisions contained in Police Regulations. Under Poltee Regulations, Regulation-214 specifies penalties, whichcould be imposed. Reduction to a lower stage has also been specified as one of the penalties under Regulation-214. However, neither Regulation-214 nor any other provisions contained in Potice Regulation declare as to which penatty would be treated as major. In the absence of there being a specific provision in this regard, rules of general application namely Rules of 1966 are applicable in view of the provisionscontained in Regulation-213 ofthe Police Regulation. 9. A perusal of Rule-10 of the Rules of 1966 would show that reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay has been categorized as one of the major pehalties that could be imposed on a Government servant. Clause (v) of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1966 being relevant is reproduced here as under:- "reducVon to alowerstage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the Govemment servant will eam increments of pay or e stagnaSon allowance, as the case may be, during the period of such reducton andwhether on the exf»ryofsuch period, the reducSon witt or witl not have the effect ofsuch period, the reduction witl or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of hispay orstagnation allowance; ;¥ @ Sr @ l 's- o/ 10. The aforesaid provision makes reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay may b? for a specified period and whether or not the Govemment ser/ant eamsincrement of pay during that period, a mapr penalty. Even in a case, the reduction does not have the effect of postponing the future increments of pay, it remains a major penalty. The express words in the provision leave no manner of doubt that even if in a case, the effect of reduction is later on wiped out, the penalty would only be classified and categorized as major penalty. In the case of Radhika Prasad Dubey (supra), this aspect came up for consideration before the Supreme Court and it was held as under:- "The wew of the tribunal in quashing the reduction of the appellant to a lower stage in ffme scafe of pay for two yesre, teter reduced to one year by the appellate officer terming it as a minor penalfy equivalent to wifhholding of increments and as a sequator holding the respondent entftled for consideration of promoison by ffiie department committee as C/rcfe Inspector affer 1985, does not commend to us. In term, ttiere of a direc6on was issued to the departmental committee to review the case or ffie respondent. The view ofthe Tribunal there on is obwously wrong. A major penalty continues to be a major penalty even though its effect in minimised to slip cfown to loss of emoluments for a shorter period. The Tribunal was therefbre, wrong in directing the Departmental Promotion ^ Committee to consder the cases of respondent for promoGon ason 1985. Weare therefore of the wew that the said committee /s not obliged to consder the case of respondent as cKrected. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside." 11. The aforesaid analysis of the provision would show that punishment which has been imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 27.5.2004 is a major penalty. Kulwant Singh Gill's case dealt with the aspect relating to withholding of increments with cumulative effect. The same is clearly distinguishable. That being so, Ctause 3-A of SOP No.22 is attracted. The stand of the respondent is that as the petitioner suffered major penalty, he would be unfrt for promotion. 12. As an upshot of discussions as above, l am unable to hold that there was any illegality in declaring the petitioner unfit for promotion. 13. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no costs. ~~~~—~— ! Sd/- j M.M. Shrivastava Judge Priya S=s^.