1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) No.189/2000 in S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3138/1990 KAILASH CHAND SOMANI V/s STATE OF RAJ. & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT :: APRIL 01, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIV KUMAR SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Shri R.K. Mathur, for the appellant. Shri Rajneesh Gupta, Dy. Govt. Advocate. BY THE COURT : (ORAL) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the appellant under rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short “the CCA Rules”). The disciplinary authority on the basis of the inquiry report, imposed punishment of stoppage of four grade increments with cumulative effect on the appellant. However, the Divisional Commissioner, Kota , on appeal, 2 converted the punishment into stoppage of five grade increments without cumulative effect vide order dated August 9, 1988. The appellant approached learned Single Bench under Article 226 of the Constitution but the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated January 12, 2000. The appellant has now come up before us assailing the afore-quoted orders. 3. At the out set we may notice that Rule 17 of the CCA Rules was amended on November 18, 1987 and clause (1)(aa) was incorporated as under : “17. Procedure for imposing minor penalties :- (1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iii) of rule 14 shall be passed except after - (a) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (aa) – holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in Rule 16, in every case in which it is proposed to with-held increments of pay for a period exceeding three years, or 3 with cumulative effect for any period or so as to aversely effect the amount of pension payable to him or in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary.” 4. Evidently, the afore-quoted clause (aa) escaped notice of the learned Single Bench as well as Divisional Commissioner, Kota. 5. Since minor penalty had to be imposed, the appellate authority (Divisional Commissioner, Kota) had to pass the order in consonance with rule 17 (1)(aa) of CCA Rules. 6. For these reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned orders dated January 12, 2000 and August 9, 1988 and remit the case to the Divisional Commissioner, Kota to decide the appeal strictly in view of rule 17(1)(aa) of CCA Rules within 30 days of receipt of certified copy of this order. The parties shall appear before the Divisional Commissioner, Kota, on April 21, 2008. 4 There shall be no order as to costs. (Guman Singh), J. (Shiv Kumar Sharma),J. Chauhan/