2025:CGHC:56934-DB NAFR Digitally HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BABLU signed by RAJENDRA BABLU BHANARKAR RAJENDRA BHANARKAR WA No. 711 of 2025 Meetha Lal Jangde S/o Late Dariyav Lal Jangde Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Purani Basti, Karhi, Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

... Appellant versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Director General Of Police (D.G.P.) Police Headquarters, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Range, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

4 - Superintendent Of Police Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.)

5 - Ishwar Sahu Posted As Constable, Reserve Centre, P.S. Lormi, District - Mungeli (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr.A.S.Rajput, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional No.1 to 4/State Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

24.11.2025

1. Heard Mr.A.S.Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State.

2. As the case of respondent No. 5 is also identical to that of the present appellant, we deem it proper not to issue notice to him.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, as reflected in paragraph 3 of the impugned order, the grievance of respondent No. 5 is identical to that of the appellant, and respondent No. 5 has supported the appellant’s case.

4. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated

22.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5089/2021 by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein.

5. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are that the appellant is holding the post of Constable as he was appointed vide order dated 04.09.2006. An article of charge was issued against the appellant and respondent No.5 with the allegation that a prisoner escaped from their custody as they were taking him on their bike, whereas a warrant was issued to take the prisoner through public transport. The Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed, and a departmental inquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted its inquiry report, and thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, exercising the power of the disciplinary authority, inflicted the punishment of a penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 23.09.2019. An appeal was preferred by the appellant and it was dismissed vide order dated 01.01.2020. On account of the punishment inflicted by the respondent authorities, the appellant's name could not be considered for promotion to the post of Head Constable.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred writ petition, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that submits that the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the facts and law applicable to the case. It is contended that the Superintendent of Police (respondent No. 4) had no authority under the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations to impose the major penalty of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Regulation 214 does not contemplate such a punishment, and Regulation 221 does not empower the Superintendent of Police to impose a major penalty of this nature. Reliance is placed on the DGP’s circular dated 10.10.2008, specifically directing that stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is not permissible under the Regulations. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant and one constable, Ishwar Sahu, were assigned the duty of escorting a prisoner on 30.08.2017, but no sanctioned vehicle, accompanying head constable, or necessa