JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred for the following relief:

“1. That, is the instant writ application the petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writs/orders/directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification contained in Memo No. 3497 (S) dated 21.06.2011 issued under the signature of the Respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder in a most arbitrary and unsustainable manner without even providing the enquiry report and issuing second show cause to the Petitioner, he has been held guilty and the following punishment has been imposed upon the Petitioner:-

(i) Stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect.

(ii) Recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,90,240/- from the Petitioner.

The Petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate writs/orders/directions for quashing of the letter contained in Memo No. 1535 (S) dated 05.03.2012 issued under the signature of the Respondent Deputy Secretary whereby and whereunder a deduction/ recovery of Rs. 29,024/- per month for ten months has been directed from the salary of the Petitioner.

The Petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate orders or command upon the Respondent Authorities to consider and dispose of the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 21.06.2011 passed by the Disciplinary Authority And to not to recover the alleged amount till the pendency of the departmental appeal preferred by the Petitioner.

For passing such other or further orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the departmental proceeding, the Inquiry Officer has recommended revoking the suspension of the petitioner after withholding one increment. However, from perusal of the impugned order of punishment, it clearly transpires that there was a direction for stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect and further there was a direction to recover an amount of Rs. 2,90,240/- from the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further draws attention towards Paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, wherein there is a specific statement of the respondent authorities that since the petitioner has been awarded minor penalty as such, second show cause notice and enquiry report has not been issued/served to him. He further contended that the statement made in Paragraph 15 clearly transpires that no enquiry report or any second show-cause notice was given to the petitioner on the ground that the punishment is not a major punishment and for minor punishment, there is no requirement of giving second show cause and/or enquiry report. He contended that this action of the respondent is totally against the settled principles of law as laid down in catena of judgments. In order to buttress his argument, he relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board Now Punjab State Power Corporation Limited vs. Raj Kumar Goel, (2014) 15 SCC 748, wherein at Paragraph 9 to 15 the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the law as under:

“9. At the very outset, we may clearly state that there is no discord or dispute over the exposition of facts. The controversy has arisen with regard to implementation of the order of punishment imposed by the authority on the delinquent employee. The courts below have opined that though it is mentioned in the order of punishment that there is stoppage of five increments without cumulative effect which is a minor punishment yet the manner of implementation converts it to a major punishment. There can be no cavil over the proposition that when a punishment of stoppage of an increment with cumulative effect is imposed, it is a major punishment. In this regard, we may refer with profit to the decision in Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab, wherein it has been held that withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it cert