P.N. Nayak vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The petitioner was imposed penalty of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect by order dated 28-12-2001 against which he preferred an

appeal and raised number of grounds to question that order, but the appellate authority dismissed the appeal against which he preferred W.P.

(S)No.4489/2015 which has been dismissed as withdrawn and additional appeal has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 21-1-2016.

Mr. D.N. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that though the submission of counsel for the petitioner have been

recorded, but same have not been dealt with in accordance with Rule 27(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Rules, 1966 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1966’) and appeal has been dismissed summarily without adverting to the provisions contained in Rule

27(2) of the Rules of 1966 and the contentions raised and therefore the orders impugned are liable to be set aside.

Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned State counsel, would support the impugned orders.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost

circumspection.

A careful perusal of the order of the Collector would show that main allegation against the petitioner is of not acting properly and submitting the

files with delay, and files and applications were kept pending. There is no substantial allegation of causing loss to the Government or any grave

misconduct on the part of the petitioner and that is the reason why the disciplinary authority by order dated 28-12-2001 has imposed penalty under

Rule 10(iv) of the Rules of 1966 which relates to withholding of increments or stagnation allowance and it is minor penalty. As such, the disciplinary

authority has imposed minor penalty against the petitioner, but since it has been given cumulative effect, it has become major penalty. Therefore, the

impugned order dated 28-12-2001 passed by the disciplinary authority as affirmed by the appellate authority are modified and punishment of

withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect under Rule 10(iv) of the Rules of 1966 is awarded to the petitioner. In other words, penalty

of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is modified to withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect.

With the aforesaid modification, the writ petition is allowed in part. No order as to cost(s).