SBCWP No. 5657/94 RSRTC Vs. Trilok Singh & Ors. Order dt:9/9/2008 1/2 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5657/94 (RSRTC Vs. Trilok Singh & Anr.) DATE OF ORDER : 9/9/2008 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.B.S.Bhati, for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Trivedi, for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, at the outset, that controversy raised in the present writ petitions is covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Fateh Singh Jhajaria vs. RSRTC & Ors. (D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.282/2003) decided on 23/9/204, wherein, Division Bench held as under: “Under the Disciplinary Rules one of the penalty envisaged is only withholding of increment but it does not specify whether under the Rules with cumulative effect or without cumulative effect. On this premise, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that such penalty having not been provided under the Rules, could not have been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant. The penalty provided is withholding of increments. Whether it is with or without cumulative SBCWP No. 5657/94 RSRTC Vs. Trilok Singh & Ors. Order dt:9/9/2008 2/2 effect may result in altering the nature of the penalty to be minor or major but the penalty remains withholding of increments and the penalty of withholding having been included as one of the penalties which can be imposed in case of any proven misconduct, the contention does not appear to be well founded.” In view of aforesaid decision of Division Bench holding that penalty by way of withholding of increment with cumulative effect also remains penalty of withholding of increment, therefore, irrespective of the fact whether the penalty remains a minor penalty or major penalty, it is provided for under Rule 36 of the Standing Order of the petitioner RSRTC, therefore, learned Industrial Tribunal has erred in setting aside the penalty only on the ground that it is not provided for in Rule 36 of the Standing Order. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to controvert this position laid down by the Division Bench. In view of aforesaid decision of Division Bench, this petition is allowed and the impugned award dated 3/5/1994 is set aside. No order as to costs. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no.4 baweja/-