The petitioner is a driver in the respondent Corporation. He was issued a memo dated 20.04.2014 alleging that he was unauthorisedly absent from 22.01.2014 to 19.02.2014. He was asked to show cause, within a period of seven days as to why disciplinary proceeding shall not be taken against him. According to the petitioner, he submitted explanation on 15.05.2014 that he was not well and he took treatment and he also submitted leave letter including medical certificate for the period from 22.01.2014 to 19.02.2014, and the charges would be dropped. Thereafter, a memo dated 16.07.2014 was issued alleging that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from 22.01.2014 to 19.02.2014. It was alleged that he committed misconduct under clause 16(a), 16(c), 16(e) and 16(k) of the Model Standing Orders. It is stated therein that the respondents proposed to impose punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect, taking lenient view of the matter. The petitioner was directed to give his explanation as to why the aforesaid punishment should not be imposed on him. He gave a reply dated 10.08.2014, reiterating his earlier stand and sought to drop the proceedings. However, the impugned order dated 26.08.2014 was passed imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect. This writ petition is filed against the aforesaid order dated 26.08.2014 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect.

2. Since the matter lies in a narrow compass, the writ petition was taken up for final disposal.

3. According to the petitioner, either in the Model Standing Orders or in the Certified Standing Orders, the punishment of stoppage of increment cannot be imposed without enquiry. He has taken me through both the Model Standing Orders as well as the Certified Standing Orders.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation has submitted that the Certifying Officer certified the standing orders on 05.09.1995. He has produced the certified copy of the standing orders.

5. According to the learned counsel for the respondents Corporation, for imposing minor punishment, no enquiry is necessary.

6. I have considered the submissions made on either side.

7. Clause 30 of the Certified Standing Orders prescribed various punishments. Clause 30(1)(i) and (ii) relate to minor punishment. Those minor punishments are (i) Censure, (ii) Fine, subject to the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 as amended from time to time.

8. Clause 30(1)(iii) to (viii) are punishments other than minor punishments. It is useful to extract the entire clause 30(1) of the Certified Standing Orders.

“30. Punishment for Misconduct:-

1. The following shall be the prescribed punishments that may be awarded to a workman guilty of misconduct.

Minor Punishment:

(i) Censure.

(ii) Fine, subject to the provisions of the payment of wages Act, 1936 as amended from time time. Punishments other than minor punishments:

(iii) Stoppage of increment or increments with or without cumulative effect.”

In cases of stoppage of increment, when it cannot be effected, if without cumulative effect, the monetary equivalent of the increments ordered to be withheld and if with cumulative effect; the monetary equivalent to 3 times of his increment ordered to be withheld, may be ordered to be recovered.

(iv) Reduction in the time scale of pay for a specified period.

Explanation:

Where an order of reduction in the time scale of pay cannot be given effect to the monetary equivalent to the amount of reduction in the time scale ordered may be recovered from Pay/Wages of the workman.

(v) Demotion to a lower post or lower grade.

Note:

No workman shall be demoted to any post or grade lower than to which he was initially recruited under the Corporation.

(vi) Suspension for a period not exceeding 30 days.

(vii) Removal from service.

(viii) Dismissal from service.”

9. Clause 31deals with Procedure to be followed in