The main legal point established in the judgment is that the imposition of a minor penalty in strict conformity with the provisions of R.15 sub-rule (13) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules is justified.

1. The writ petition is to quash the disciplinary proceedings taken against the petitioner resulting ultimately in Ext. P-1 order of the Government imposing a penalty of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. There were altogether five charges against the petitioner which will be found set out in Ext. P-1. Preliminary enquiries were conducted by X-Branch Vigilance Division into some of the allegations, which revealed a prima facie case of misconduct and irregularity. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Charges were framed, and were referred for enquiry and report to the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings. This was obviously on the basis that a major punishment was proposed to be inflicted and that it was necessary to sanction and follow the procedure prescribed by R.15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. The Tribunal found that none of the charges had been substantiated. The proceedings were submitted to the disciplinary authority, namely, the Government of Kerala. That authority disagreed with the Tribunal in respect of its findings on charges 2 and 3. We may briefly extract these charges:

"2. The RTA meeting held on 13th October 1971 refused permit to bus KLZ.1087 on the ground that it is a 1955 model. But you without getting the order reviewed by the R.T.A. issued temporary permit to the same vehicle from 16th October 1971 to 16th November 1971 and again on 18th November 1971 to 30th November 1971.

3. The R.T.A. meeting held on 25th November 1971 decided to make an enquiry about the clandestine running of vehicle KLZ.1274 in Kozhikode City, and you were directed to make a report to the Regional Transport Authority. You without making any such enquiry, issued temporary permit to the vehicle KLZ. 1274 for running in Kozhikode."

The substance of the reasoning of the Government was that the petitioner who was a Regional Transport Officer and the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, was bound to carry out the decisions of the Regional Transport Authority and was not entitled to sit in judgment for a revision of its decision. The Government was accordingly of the view that the petitioner's action which was made the subject-matter of charges 2 and 3 constituted a violation of his statutory duties and obligations and therefore merited the disciplinary proceedings taken against him. Having come to the conclusion on charges 2 and 3 at variance with the report of the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings, by the very same order (Ext. P-1), the Government directed that the petitioner's increments be withheld for a period of three years with cumulative effect. The question canvassed before us is whether this procedure followed by the Government and the order passed in Ext. P1 is in violation of the statutory provisions of the Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. R.1 i of these Rules provides the penalties that can be imposed on a Government servant. Nine penalties are provided, and it is clear from the scheme and the provisions or the Rules that penlaties (i) to (iv) are regarded as minor penalties and numbers (v) to (ix) are regarded as major penalties. The procedural rules keep in mind this distinction between the two sets of clauses. Sub-rule (1) of R.15 prohibits the imposition of any of the major penalties except after a full enquiry in the manner provided by the following sub-rules. The formal enquiry may be conducted either by the Government or by the appointing authority or by the disciplinary authority or the head of the Department or any officer in the department empowered by the appointing authority, or by a Special Officer or Tribunal appointed by the Government or a Tribunal generally appointed for making enquiries into the conduct of the Government servants. This is how the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings came into the picture. Sub-rule 9 provides that at the conclusion of the enquiry the enquiring authority is to prepar