ORDER

1. The respondent was awarded the punishment of withholding of five increments in terms of the order dated 5-11-1991. He was compulsorily retired on 6-1-1992 on the basis of the recommendations contained in the minutes of the Screening Committee held on 5-12-1991. Both the orders i.e. withholding of five increments dated 5-11-1991 and that of compulsory retirement dated 6-1-1992. were successfully challenged by the respondent before the State Public Service Tribunal. The order of punishment as also of the compulsory retirement were quashed by the Tribunal, inter alia, holding that the order imposing punishment of withholding increments was passed without following the procedure for awarding major punishments. The writ petition filed by the State challenging the order of the Tribunal having been dismissed by the High Court, the State is in appeal on grant of leave.

2. Before the Tribunal, the stand taken by the State in the written statement, inter alia, was that the employee was served with show-cause notice dated 31-8-1990, he submitted his reply dated 12-9-1990, the order awarding punishment of withholding of 5 increments with future effect was passed under Rule 55 of the CCA Rules and Rule 55-B of the Subordinate Service Rules. In the writ petition, except making a vague and bald statement that the stoppage of 5 increments permanently is minor punishment and it is not necessary to follow the procedure requisite for imposing major punishment, the State did not make any reference to the rules that may be applicable. The High Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal on the ground that procedure prescribed for awarding major punishment was not followed. The appellant has neither filed copy of show-cause notice dated 318-1990, reply dated 12-9-1990, order dated 5-11-1991 nor any rule nor produced before us any rule under which order of punishment may have been passed. Nothing has been shown in support of the contention that the procedure for imposition of major punishment was not applicable.

3. Under these circumstances, we have no option but to affirm the order of the Tribunal as also that of the High Court holding that the order dated 5-11~1991 was illegal.

4. Faced with this difficulty, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of compulsory retirement is sustainable despite the order dated 5-11-1991 having been quashed. We are unable to accept the contention. The a minutes of the Screening Committee, above referred, clearly show that the main basis of the recommendation for compulsory retirement, insofar as the respondent is concerned, was the factum of punishment order dated 5-111991. When the said order has been quashed, it is not possible to hold that despite that order the Screening Committee would have made a recommendation for the compulsory retirement of the respondent.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the appeal with costs. Counsels fee quantified as Rs 5000.