! ^^. ^ ^ :--^ " ^ ^ ^~i F^'-"^.^3^ T"^ • ^\ <^ c^ BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ( CHHATTISGARH ) W.A. No. 36^ of 2010 APPELLANT/ PETITIONER Mathura Prasad Pandey S/o late Shri Badri Prasad Pandey, aged about 51 ^- .;••..l.^years, R/o Sector-1, Street A'venue-B, A^ L-Y5-'""kL».-'i'"' ,W 16/5, Bhilai Nagar, Posted in the post of to...--"S.-v<^^yw" Head Constable at Police Station Jamul, ..'-B*' ~^" -^' ^a- Res^pndents ^.'-.- ^S,'/SMK%?,:1^. '—:'1. Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur(C.G.) 2) Director General of Police, Raipur (C.G.) -3) Inspector General of Police, Office of Inspector General, Raipur(C.G.) 4) Superintendent of Police, Durg (C.G.) 5) C.S.P. cum Enquiry Officer, Durg (C.G.) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 (1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIViSION BENCH) ACT 2006. MGH CtWRT <M? CHHATnSGARH. MLASPUR DB: HON'BLB I.M. QODDU8I & HCTTBLE B.K. AGRAWAfc, JJ WRIT APPEAL No.206 OF 2010 Vs. \^ WRIT APPBAL UMDER SECnON 2(11 OF TSSE CHHATnSOARH HIGH COURT iSSVEAL TO DIVIMCTI BMICHI ACT. 2006 APPEARAN<®: Mr. R. K. Kesarwfflri, coimsdl for ttie Appellant Mr. Yashwant Smgh Tliakur, Deputy Advocate Ger»eral for the State. ORALORDEa (06.07.2010) Per LM. OUDDC8I 1. Heaid on LA.No.Ol, an a{^riicatfcai fia- condonation ofde^r iu filing the appeal. 2. Havtng heard teamed coimsel for the partfes aiid for fhe reasoas stated to the appHeation, the dday ia fflmg ttie appeal is coiidoned. AppBcatmn is aUowed. 3. Heard finalty with tbe consent of couxisel for both the parties. 4. Thte writ appeal has been filed a^inst thc impugned ordw dated 20.04.2010 passed toy ttie leamed sii^le Judge in W.P (^.No. 1768/ 2009 disinissiag the writ petition. 5. The writ appeHant was posted as Head Constable. An enquay was coilducted ngahist hiaa in wUch tlie Superuitendent of PoMce, Diu^, passcd an otder anposing peBatty of wifhholding of one inci'einent wlth cuaiulative eflfect. TIie aBcgatioa aysdaat hiia is relatiag to escap^ ofa APPEUANT Mathurei Prasad Pandey RESPONDBNTS State of Chhattis^rh & ofbers \' t-1. deteaiie uaite' fhe cwstoSy^'watsyftStesdt.ssBda&iwpe^sxs coiistabtes. 6. Leamed couasd for the appeBaat subHuts that «»iDinoa pnxxedi^s -wate iaitiated and tIaMiefoie wlUiout saaeyon of tt>e higher autlmrity, it was not penmssBtle to mitfate conunoa proceedii^s agaiast tfae Constediles aad Ifead constabtes. 7. We have perased the Rule 18 «rf fhc Chhattis^A Cnril Serrices (CIassfflcatioa, Coiitrol and A^»caQ Rutes, 1966 which provides that where two or aaoic GoveraaBent Senairts aae concecned ia aay case, the Govermtr OK aiqr other aathority coinpeteat to iinpose tte penally of dianussd fixat scmce on all sucli goverameat serrouAs aa^ aiate an oaier directtDg that disciplinary action against aB of fheiB ntty be totoen ia a conam.oa proceedmgs. 8. In tbe instant caae the competeirt authority is UB Superinteiuient of PoHee and theBefoee, if djsciplauuy pio<«edtngswcre iaatiated by order of the SupctiateiMtent of Polfce, there is x*o cosdition for Uaa to get sanetioa fiiwn h^her auttiority. Fuxther fhe inteaticai eftte Rule t8(1) is that in case of coniBion enquJuy if tite es&pto^ea ase a£ difierent status whose q^oin&^ authorities SBB ^fifereirt, one authority that is fhe U^hest appoiatiag au'tfaority af tte cntidoyces may oider for cominoa pioceedings s^aiast aB. Therefore, this rule is not appUcablc ia tfae iflntant aatter. The superiatendent of Rolice is conapeteat to iuflict any of the pumsiuaeat speeified in tfae RegutetiMis 214 to 217 on Head 0>nstd>les and Constables as pnynided in Regulation 221 of C.G. Polk-e Regu]atk>ns fiaaicd imder tfae Pcrfice Act, 1861. 9» Regidatton 214 pcowldcs fbr pntunh «>nt (rf iscdaetton t& a lowcr post or timc scate or radtiction to a lower stage ia the time scate ofpay for a speoffied perfodwiffa terthcr tUreetion as to whether or not tbe memtoer of tbe Suboidinate PoBee Semce wiU eara increntents of pay or the stagnation aUowaiice, as the caae may be, diuii^ the period of sucti \\ '? ^ r ..'•'s •^ \^ reduction and whetfaer oa the esqafay of sueh pertod tte reductioa will or wffl iiot hawe fbe eflTcct of postponiag the further increineiits of tus pay or stagaation aMowaace, inferBffawithtooldiDg ofinciBmeats ofp^ ifichidiBqg stoj^age at aa efficieiKy bar or stagnatibn aUowaace and reduction to a tower post Tlieiefope, the Superintendeiit af Rrifce imposed the penalty of stopp^e of oia iacteateat with cumulative efflct which wiU affect the appeBant's flituic increnuents aod pei^ion etc. 10. At fhfa stajp, learaed counsel for (hc a^iellant subinits that the Superinteiident of FtoUce caiuaot pass the oider to aBiect fhe future uacreinents aad pensa^ whtlc impoaiag ttac pnnishment. However, siace tbc writ appdlant woirid nat get oae moiement, we are unaMte to uaderstand faow it wffi not afiFeet fhe pei^on etc. Any how, we mie of flie; opnioa that the penaton ofthe writ appeBaat is to tee finaBzed ly the competent authority at the time of Iris iBtnetaent aad fherefoBB, at ttas stage, the onler regardii^ peadon was not appropriate. 11. ta view of the above, we uphold the ordter of the l^imed singte judge as wcB aa the impugBed order <rf puntohnient passed E^amst the writ appeBaat except that it wiB bssm aEfect on Iris pensfa>n etc., at tbe time of retaemeat of (hie writ appcUant in accordaaee wtth the Rules. 12. The impugned oider dated 20.04.2010 passed by the teanaed singte judge stands modifled to the abowe extent. 13. With the aforesaid observations/directioa, tte writ apperi staBds disposed ofat the aaotion stage itseK ~L^-. -_. " ' ———„ Sd/- . sd/- N.K. Agrawal I.M^uddusi _ judge Judge ——.- Kao