IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of timely filing of appeals and writ petitions, the inability of successive representations to condone delay, and the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the charge-sheets dated 08.12.2007, 24.11.2009, 10.06.2010 (Annexure P/9 to P/11), appellate order dated 05.11.2018, 05.11.2018 (Annexure P/1) by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the punishment order of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect passed on 08.12.2007 has been rejected on the count that he has preferred an appeal after lapse of 11 years. The petitioner has also preferred writ petition against the appellate order dated 05.11.2018 (Annexure P/2) by which his appeal has been rejected on the count that he has preferred an appeal after lapse of 8 years of punishment order of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect has been passed on 24.11.2009. The petitioner has also preferred an appeal against the order dated 23.08.2010 by which punishment of one increment without cumulative effect has been rejected after lapse of 8 years of punishment order. The petitioner has also preferred writ petition against the order dated 22.01.2022 passed by Director General of Police by which his representation against the punishment order dated 08.12.2007, 24.11.2009 & 10.06.2010 has again been rejected vide impugned order.

2. The brief facts as reflected from record are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 09.11.2005 on the post of Constable. On 13/05/2007, a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging that he has violated sub-section (2) of clause-1 of Rule- 3 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1965 and Clause-64 (3) of Police Regulation being absent unauthorizedly and subsequently respondent No. 5 vide order dated 08.12.2007 directed for withholding one increment with cumulative effect. Again, on 26.11.2009 another charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner directing him to reply within 10 days and thereafter departmental enquiry has been initiated wherein he was served with imposition of punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner was again served with chargesheet on 12.05.2009 and department enquiry was initiated against him wherein punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect was passed on 10.06.2010.

3. The petitioner being aggrieved with the imposition of punishment orders has preferred three different appeals before Director General of Police/respondent No. 4 on 22.02.2018, which were rejected on 05.11.2018 (Annexure P/1 to P/3) thereafter, he has preferred another representation on 11.08.2020, which has also been rejected on 22.01.2022 (Annexure P/4).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that period from 2007 to 2010, the petitioner was suffering with Piles, Hepatitis B and Migraine and continued undergoing treatment with several doctors at Rajnandgaon and Raipur, due to which, he was not in a position to perform duty comfortably with good mental condition or sitting comfortably and because of the same, he had not worked properly and even he had to make himself absent from duty and not informed the authority about his absence and he was not in a position to communicate the immediate authority as the problem was beyond his control. Due to continuing ailments, he went on depression and gradually his condition became deteriorated and ultimately suffered with mental illness on account of which, he has to take leave which was the cause of his absent from duty. It has been further contended that after long treatment of about three years, ultimately he recovered from illness in year 2011 and since then he is discharging his duty with sincerity and has received several award of cash, prizes and praise. He would further submit that the impugned orders withholding of one increment of petitioner is completely bad in law and against the principles of natural justice and Police Regulations. He would further submit that the petitioner had submitted reply and representation to all the charge-sheets with medical papers but respondent No. 5 has