JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

1. Plaintiff has filed the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.

2. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 25.02.1993 vide which the suit filed by the present appellant-plaintiff for declaration to the effect that order No.227 dated 18.06.1990 vide which two annual increments with future effect had been stopped without holding any regular inquiry was illegal, null and void, had been dismissed. Challenge is also the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court dated 22.01.1996 vide which the first appeal filed by the present appellant had also been dismissed.

3. Undisputed facts in the present case are that the plaintiff was working as a Lower Division Clerk in Punjab State Electricity Board at the relevant time and had given a departmental examination held on 22-23/06/1989 at Ferozepur and after having given the said exam, a show cause notice dated 14.08.1989 was issued to the plaintiff under the Punjab State Electricity Board (Employees Punishments and Appeal) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as "1971 Regulations"). Without holding any regular inquiry or issuance of charge-sheet, the respondent-department passed an order dated 18.06.1990 imposing the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with future effect. It was the case of the plaintiff/present appellant that the same was a major punishment and it was incumbent upon the authorities to hold a regular inquiry before imposing the said punishment, which was not done and thus, the impugned order dated 18.06.1990 was required to be set aside on the said ground alone.

4. On the other hand, it was the case of the respondents that the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with future effect was a minor penalty as defined under Rule 5(iv) of the 1971 Regulations and thus, there was no requirement to hold a regular inquiry or issue a chargesheet.

5. The trial Court vide order dated 21.09.1992 framed the following issues: -

"1. Whether the order dated 18.6.90 is not legal and valid as alleged in the plaint ? OPP.

2. Relief."

6. After considering the documents on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that no regular inquiry was conducted in the present case but since as per Section 5(iv) of the 1971 Regulations, the punishment imposed was a minor punishment, thus, no regular inquiry was required to be held. The trial Court thus dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The 1st Appellate Court reiterated the said observations of the trial Court and further observed that since as per the relevant rules, the stoppage of two annual increments with future effect was a minor penalty, thus, even the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. The State of Punjab ", reported as Supp 1991 (1) SCC 504, would not apply. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the show cause notice is dated 14.08.1989 (Ex.P1) and the impugned order (Ex.P2) was passed on 18.06.1990, thus, the rules/regulations which were prevalent at the time of issuance of the said notice and the passing of the said impugned order would be relevant for consideration in the present case. It is further submitted that as per Regulation 5(iv) of the 1971 Regulations, which were prevalent at the relevant time, provided that withholding of increments of pay was a minor penalty, but did not specify as to whether in a case where the increment was withheld with future effect/cumulative effect, the same would be a minor penalty or major penalty. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill (supra), which dealt with similar provisions, would apply and as per the said judgment, the penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect/future effect is a major penalty. It is