Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 24547
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Sameer Mohale – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 3658 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sunil Pillai
For the Respondents: Rahul Tamaskar
The court held that the penalty of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect was disproportionate to the misconduct of unauthorized absence and modified the punishment to be without cumulative effect.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Disciplinary Action - Proportionality of Punishment - Stoppage of increments with cumulative effect for unauthorized absence is held to be disproportionate to the misconduct and modified to non-cumulative effect. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect is disproportionate to the misconduct of unauthorized absence.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the proportionality of a disciplinary penalty involving stoppage of increments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. modification of punishment from cumulative to non-cumulative effect based on the principle of proportionality. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. partial allowance of the writ petition to modify the penalty. (Para 6) |
1. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 13-7-2020 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.2, by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order dated 2-1-2020 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.3, whereby he has been inflicted the penalty of stoppage to two annual increments with cumulative effect.
2. Mr. Sunil Pillai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that directing stoppage of increments amounts to major punishment which is disproportionate to the misconduct allegedly proved against the petitioner, therefore, it should be suitably reduced or set aside.
3. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/State, would support the impugned orders and oppose the writ petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record with utmost circumspection.
5. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 14-5-2019 as he remained unauthorisedly absent from duty continuously from 10-9-2018 to 11- 9-2019 and he refused to take the envelope of registered post sent through post which is found proved and by order dated 2-1-2020, he was inflicted the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect which amounts to awarding major punishment which has even been approved by the appellate authority. However, after having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and gone through the record and further considering the material available on record, the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is disproportionate to the misconduct allegedly proved against the petitioner and therefore it requires to be modified. Accordingly, the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect imposed upon the petitioner is modified to the extent of non-cumulative effect.
6. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above but without any order as to cost(s).
