IMPORTANT POINT
Stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty requiring a departmental enquiry under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Rules, 1966.

ORDER :

1. Assailing the legality, validity and correctness of the order of the Collector dated 08.08.2016, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, by which, the Collector, Kabirdham has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein while affirming the order of the Tahsildar dated 17.03.2016, by which, she has been inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short the Rules of 1966).

2. The petitioner was subjected with a notice dated 17.12.2015 by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bodla along-with the charge sheet vide Annexure P-4, to which, the petitioner replied by filing reply Annexure P-5 that the alleged misconduct is not made out and, as such, the charges deserve to be dropped against her. Thereafter, the learned Tahsildar, Bodla by order dated 17.03.2016 finding that the reply to the charge sheet filed by the petitioner is not satisfactory proceeded to impose a penalty by stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect under Rule 10(v) of the Rules of 1966.

3. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Collector, Kabirdham under Section 23 of the Rules of 1966 questioning the order of the Tahsildar and ultimately, by the impugned order, the Collector, Kabirdham has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against which this writ petition has been preferred.

4. Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty under Rule 10(v) of the Rules of 1966, therefore, it could not have been imposed without holding departmental enquiry under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966 and he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504 and Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 433.

5. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State counsel would support the impugned order and submits that considering the misconduct found proved by the Tahsildar, the petitioner has rightly been imposed with a penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect, which is in accordance with law and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner was served with charge sheet by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bodla by memo dated 17.12.2015 vide Annexure P-4, against which, she filed reply and finding her reply unsatisfactory, the Tahsildar by order dated 17.03.2016 imposed a penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect, but admittedly the disciplinary proceeding under Rule 14/16 of the Rules of 1966 has not been initiated and conducted.

8. At this stage, the provisions contained in Rule 16 (1-A) of the Rules of 1966 deserves to be noticed, which provides for imposing minor penalties:

“(1-A). Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government servant under clause (a) of that sub-rule, to with-hold increments of pay or stagnation allowance and such with-holding of increments or stagnation allowance is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government servant or to with-hold increments of pay or stagnation allowance for a period exceeding three years or to with-hold increments of pay or stagnation allowance with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rule (3) or (23) of Rule 14, before making any order imposing on the Government servant any such penalty.”

9. A careful perusal of the aforesaid Rule would show that where the disciplinary authority proposes to wit