Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and also refused payment of full salary apart from subsistence allowance for which he remained in jail custody by the disciplinary authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Dumka vide memo no. 231/R dated 19.3.2002, Annexure-1/A. His service Appeal No. 01/2002-03 has also been dismissed vide order dated 3.4.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal pargana Division, Dumka, Respondent No. 2 affirming the original order.

3. The petitioner has assailed the appellate order dated 3.5.2006 on the ground that punishment which has been passed is major punishment under the Department Rule imposing stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect having consequences for rest of his career. However, from perusal of impugned order, it would be clear that no full dress departmental enquiry was held before imposing the said major punishment to the petitioner and the Commissioner, Dumka has erroneously held that it is a minor punishment. It is further submitted that the petitioner had categorically stated in the writ petition that neither proper departmental proceeding in the eye of law has been held nor the inquiry report was served upon him, which is contrary to the settled procedure laid down for conduct of Departmental Proceeding before imposing such punishment and the same has not been denied.

4. According to the petitioner, he was implicated in a criminal case, when he was posted as Halka Karamchari of Saraiyahat Circle Office, Masalia, in P.S. Case. No. 13 of 1996 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 380, 302, 323, I.P.C. Though he was convicted for sentence of death by learned Trial Court but was acquitted by the Patna High Court in appeal preferred by him. On his acquittal, he preferred an application for revocation of his suspension, which was imposed upon him during the pendency of a criminal proceeding on account of his alleged absence from the office and remaining in jail custody. However, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him in the year 2001 with certain charges of remaining absent from duty; as also being an accused in Jama P.S. Case No. 13 of 1996 and having remained absent from duty further during which period someone else was asked to discharge his duty.

5. According to him, though he explained his innocence by filing elaborate show cause giving the circumstances in which he was arrested and he had informed the Circle Officer, Masalia regarding his arrest but Deputy Commissioner by Annexure-1/A has imposed the major punishment withholding two increments with cumulative effect without any full dress departmental proceeding against him. Accordingly, he has assailed the impugned of the Commissioner, who has confirmed the original order of punishment.

6. The respondents have not been able to deny that no full dress departmental inquiry was held before imposing the punishment. Earlier vide order dated 21.11.2012 on the request of the respondents, time was allowed to bring on record the records of the departmental proceeding to substantiate their stand that full dress inquiry was held before imposing punishment. They have, however, failed to bring on record any such documents. A perusal of the appellate order also shows that the Commissioner has held that stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect comes under the category of minor punishment, which could have been inflicted without conducting departmental inquiry if the controlling officer was satisfied after show cause and explanation to the employee concerned. However, the appellate authority has also failed to consider that the order of punishment is not simply withholding of two increments but with cumulative effect. The order of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect cannot be said to be a minor punishment. As a consequence of such punishment would remain upon the petitioner for the rest of his career as w