G R GAHARWAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(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. & others.