1. The petitioner while working as Range Officer was placed under suspension. After getting Ext.P5 explanation, Ext.P6 order was passed by the first respondent imposing punishment of bar of one increment with cumulative effect. Even though the petitioner was issued with show cause notice and explanation was called for, no detailed enquiry was conducted regarding the matter. Ext.P5 is the explanation given by the petitioner in this regard. The appeal as well as the Revision Petition filed by him were also dismissed. The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that before imposing major penalty of barring of one increment with cumulative effect, enquiry should have been conducted. It is the contention of the Government that barring of one increment with cumulative effect is a minor punishment for which no enquiry is required. The explanation of the petitioner was considered in detail and a speaking order was passed and it was confirmed in appeal and Revision Petition.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab (1991 Supp. (1) SCC 504) wherein it was held that punishment of barring of increment wi