Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.:- The present petition has been filed for quashing of impugned orders dated 7.1.2009 (Annexure P-3) and 14.6.2010 (Annexure P-5) and also for issuing directions to respondents-authority to release two increments with consequential service benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was working as Clerk since 30.11.1978 in the office of Secretary, HUDA, Sector 18, Chandigarh and later on promoted to the post of Assistant. On 29.10.2007, a memorandum was issued to the petitioner proposing action against her under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules 1987’) on the ground that she had accepted 15% allotment amount of a plot at her own level even after the lapse of 110 days from the date of allotment of the plot. As per condition No.5 of the allotment letter dated 2.5.2001, the amount was to be deposited within a period of thirty days but the same was not deposited within the time fixed and inspite of said condition, the amount was accepted by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted her reply stating that an application for condonation of delay along with two bank drafts was marked to record keeper. It was also mentioned in the reply that the petitioner was relieved on 27.9.2001 from the Estate Office, HUDA and joined her duties in the office of Executive Engineer, HUDA, Division Sonepat and, therefore, she cannot be held liable. After considering her reply and taking a lenient view the charge was converted from Rule 7 to Rule 8 of the Rules and vide order dated 7.1.2009 a penalty of stoppage of two increments for three years was imposed. The said order was challenged before the Financial Commissioner by way of filing an appeal and vide order dated 14.6.2010 the penalty of stoppage of two increments for a period of three years was reduced to penalty of stoppage of two increments for a period of two years. Thereafter the petitioner retired from services of HUDA on 31.8.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation.

3. The present petition has been filed to challenge both the orders dated 7.1.2009 as well as 14.6.2010 by raising various grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of respondents is not only illegal but contrary to Rules as chargesheet was issued under Rule 7 and the same was later on converted under Rule 8 of the Rules without conducting any inquiry and as such the impugned orders are not sustainable under the law. Learned counsel also submits that keeping in view the allegations, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is on the higher side and even the warning could have served the purpose for the lapse, if any, on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel has also relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Dr. K.G. Tiwari Vs. State of Haryana 2002 (4) SLR 329, wherein, it has been held that once the chargesheet has been issued for imposition of a major penalty and merely by examining reply and without conducting any regular inquiry, even a minor punishment cannot be imposed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as respondent No.3 submit that it was a case under Rule 7 but by taking a lenient view the same was converted under Rule 8 of the Rules. The punishing authority awarded stoppage of two increments for three years and thereafter on appeal, the same was reduced to stoppage of two increments for two years. Learned counsel also submits that for imposing minor penalty, no regular inquiry is required. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has already retired on 31.8.2010.

5. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned orders as well as other documents available on file.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant after promotion from the post of Clerk. As per terms and conditions of allotment of a plot to the allottee, 15% amount was to be deposited within a