Withholding of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and requires the procedure prescribed for major penalties under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958.

1. This special appeal under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1948, is directed against the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge dated November 24, 1973.

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant Krishna Dutta Sharma was an officer of the Rajasthan Administrative Service and posted as Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Nohar at the relevent time. A disciplinary action was initiated against him by memorandum Ex. 1 dated September 8. 1976, under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The above rule 17 deals with the procedure for imposing minor penalties. The appellant was furnished with statement of allegations sent along with the memorandum Ex. 1. The appellant submitted a reply denying the allegations and the State Government after considering the reply of the appellant passed an order Ex. 3 dated November 20, 1968 imposing a penalty of withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect.

3. A review application filed by the appellant was dismissed on July 9, 1969. The appellant applied for a copy on October 13, 1969, but was refused by memorandum dated Dec., 9, 1969. The appellant then applied to the Govt. for review on May 5, 1972. It was also rejected on the ground that no fresh point has been raised in the review petition. In these circumstances, the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order imposing the penalty of withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect.

4. Learned Single Judge did not find favour with the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner on merit and further that no explanation of the delay had been given for the period from December 9, 1969 to May 5, 1972.

5. Aggrieved against the judgment of learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed by the petitioner.

6. An important and substantial question of law has been raised in this appeal. Rule 14 of the Rules provides for the following penalties:-

(i) Censure;

(ii) withholding of increments or promotion;

(iii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of any law, rule or order;

(iv) reduction to a lower service, grade or post, or to a lower time scale or to a lower stage in the time scale or in the case of pension to an amount lower than that due under the rules;

(v) compulsory retirement on proportionate pension;

(vi) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for further employment;

(vii) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment.

Rule 16 provides for the procedure for imposing major penalties and Rule 17 provides for the procedure for imposing minor penalties. Rule 16 (1) lays down that no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clause (iv) to (vii) of Rule 14 shall be passed except after an enquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner. hereinafter provided. Thus, the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of Rule 14 have been considered as major penalties and an inquiry with regard to such penalties is required to be held in the manner provided under various sub-rules of Rule 16, Rule 17 provides for procedure for imposing minor penalties and such minor penalties are those, which have been specified in clause (i) to (iii) of Rule 14.

7. In the present case, the petitioner appellant has been imposed a penalty of withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect. There is no clear mention of such penalty in clauses (i) to (iii) of Rule 14. Clause (ii) of Rule 14 only makes a mention of with-holding of increment simpliciter but does not mention withholding of increment with cumulative effect. Clause (iv) of Rule 14 provides for a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale. The contention of the appellant is that the penalty of withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and is equiva