ORDER ON BOARD

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondent authorities for its kind perusal.

(ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quashed the impugned punishment order dated 14.02.2022 passed by Respondent No. 3, IGP, Bilaspur Range (Annexure P/4).

(iii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside /quashed the impugned Appellate order dated 28.11.2022 passed by Respondent No. 2 DGP, PHQ, Raipur (Annexure P/10).

(iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to refund the whole deducted amount to the petitioner which has been deducted due to impugned punishment order dated 14.02.2022 and also give the benefit of increment which has been also withheld due to punishment order dated 14.02.2022.

(v) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to give promotional benefit to the petitioner on next higher post.

(vi) That this Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to grant suitable compensation to the petitioner from the respondent-authorities for the mental and physical hardships suffered by him without there being any fault on his part and also grant cost of the petition.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner while holding the post of Inspector (Admn.) and posted under Respondent No. 4 was imposed penalty of withholding one increment with non-cumulative effect for a period of one year. Before imposing penalty vide Annexure P-1, Respondent No. 3 has not issued any show-cause notice to petitioner as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him or punishment be imposed and therefore the order of imposing punishment Annexure P-4 is in violation of principles of natural justice. He next contended that the document which is relied upon by the State counsel showing preliminary enquiry done is behind the back of petitioner. Copy of enquiry report is also not serviced upon petitioner and therefor entire proceeding initiated by the respondents-authorities for imposing punishment against petitioner vide Annexure P-4 being in violation of principles of natural justice, without affording opportunity of hearing, is bad in law. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision passed by this Court in WPS No. 5370 of 2025 (Mohan Lal Lahri and others vs. State of Chhattigarh and others) passed on 16.02.2026.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of leaned counsel for petitioner and would submit that based on the preliminary enquiry, show-cause notice was issued by Respondent No. 4 asking the petitioner to submit reply. Petitioner submitted reply, which was found to be non-satisfactory and thereafter proposal was made by Respondent No. 4 and forwarded to Respondent No. 3 for initiating disciplinary proceedings against petitioner or to impose punishment and accordingly based on the letter proposing the disciplinary proceedings/ imposing punishment, Respondent No. 3 has passed order Annexure P-4 on 14.02.2022 and therefore the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was not afforded opportunity of being heard nor any show-cause notice was issued, is not correct in view of the documents filed along with writ petition as also reply filed by him.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record.

5. The main grievance of petitioner in this case is that petitioner was imposed punishment of withholding one increment with non-cumulative effect for a period of one year is without initiation of any departmental enquiry proceedings against him or without issuance of notice in this regard.

6. It is case of petitioner that only a letter was issued to petitioner asking f