Chattisgarh High Court
G R Gaharwar vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 April, 2009
Author: Satish K. Agnihotri
Bench: Satish K. Agnihotri
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition No 4754 of 2004
G R Gaharwar
...Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Chhattisgarh
2 Director General of Police
3 Inspector General of Police
4 Sr Superintendent of Police
...Respondents
! Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
^ Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Ms Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer for the respondents
Honble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J
Dated: 17/04/2009
: Judgement
Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India
O R D E R
(Passed on this 17th day of April, 2009)
1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 7.10.2003 (Annexure-P/5), passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Durg, whereby a penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner also impugns the order dated 15.1.2004 (Annexure P/7), passed by the Inspector General of Police, Raipur, in appeal, and the order dated 16.6.2004 (Annexure P/8), passed by the Director General of Police, Raipur, in mercy petition.
2. The brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that on 13.4.2003 the petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector in Police Station - Supela, District Durg. On that day one Smt. Kumari Bai Yadav lodged a report in the police station that some persons have caused injuries on the person of her husband Shri Parson Yadav. On asking whereabouts of her injured husband, she went back and again came to the police station after about 21 to 40 hours. After completion of required formalities the petitioner sent the injured person for medical treatment to District Hospital, Durg at 21.55 p.m. It is alleged that due to the unnecessary delay caused by the petitioner, the injured died on the way of hospital. In this regard, by letter dated 4.5.2003 (Annexure P/1) an explanation was sought for from the petitioner, which was replied by him on 23.5.2003 (Annexure P/2). Being dissatisfied by the explanation submitted by the petitioner a charge sheet dated 12.6.2003 (Annexure P/3) was issued to him. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 28.6.2003 (Annexure P/4) to the charge- sheet, denying the charges levelled against him. The departmental enquiry was completed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Crime) Durg - Bhilai, wherein both the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. After departmental enquiry, by impugned order dated 7.10.2003 (Annexure P/5), the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect from 1.11.2003. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 21.3.2004 (Annexure P/6), which was rejected by order dated 15.1.2004 (Annexure P/7), passed by the Inspector General of Police, Raipur. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a mercy petition, which was also rejected by order dated 16.6.2004 (Annexure P/8), passed by the Director General of Police, Raipur. Thus, this petition.
3. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that imposition of penalty, withholding of one increment, with cumulative effect, is a major penalty and the same cannot be imposed by the Superintendent of Police, as per the Regulation 221 read with 214 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations. He would further submit that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a judgment and order, passed by this Court, in Anil Tiwari Vs. State of C.G. & others1.
4. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General with Ms Sunita Jain, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State does not dispute the above submission. He would submit that admittedly, withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty, as is clear from the Regulation 214 of the Chhattisgarh Police Regulations. The Superintendent of Police can impose the punishment as specified in Regulation 214 (I and iv) and Regulation 215 (a and b). Learned counsel fairly concedes that the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Raipur suffers from jurisdictional error and is incompetent.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
6. In Anil Tiwari (supra), wherein the facts and question of law were the same, as is in the present case, this Court allowing the petition, held as under :
"11. I have examined the above stated regulations and submissions made by the parties. It is clear that the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh has power of imposing penalty of "Censure" as specified in Regulation 214 (i) and reduction to a lower post or time scale or reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further direction as to whether or not the member of the Subordinate Police Service will earn increments of pay or the stagnation allowance, as the case may be, during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the further increments of his pay or stagnation allowance on the Sub-Inspector and Assistant Sub-Inspector. There is no mention of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect in Regulation 214...."
7. Having regard to the facts situation of the case and the ratio of the decision in Anil Tiwari (supra), this petition deserves to be and is allowed. The impugned order dated 7.10.2003 (Annexure P/5) and the subsequent orders dated 15.1.2004 (Annexure P/7) and 16.6.2004 (Annexure P/8) are quashed. No order asto costs.
J U D G E