CWP(T) No. 7423/2008 07.04.2011 Present: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents Petitioner has prayed mainly for the following relief:- i) That the orders dated 10.4.2001 vide Annexure A-11, rejecting the appeal by a non speaking orders, may kindly be quashed and set-aside. ii) That the orders dated 29.9.2000 vide Annexure A-9, may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the penalty imposed thereunder may also be set-aside. iii) That the respondents may be directed to restore the pay of the applicant to Rs.5000/- w.e.f. 1.7.2000 with all consequential benefits forthwith. iv) That the action of the Respondent No.3 in imposing the penalty against the applicant on 29.9.2000 (A-9) and in withholding the annual increments which were due and payable on 1.7.1998, 17.7.1999 and on 1.7.2000 as mentioned in ground(s) of the OA, may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set-aside. v) That the respondents may be directed to release the annual increments in favour of the applicant which were due and payable on 1.7.1998, 17.7.1999 and 1.7.2000 with all consequential benefits forthwith. vi) That the Inquiry report, the inquiry and the penalty may also be declared illegal, being perverse and violative of various procedurals defects and the same may kindly be set-aside. 2. Mr. Ranjan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that insofar as challenge to the impugned order dated 10.4.2001 (Annexure A-11) is concerned, a direction can be issued to the respondents to decide the petitioner’s appeal afresh. He further submits that insofar as prayer (v) is concerned, the stand taken by the respondents is legally unsustainable in law. Other reliefs do not survive. 3. In the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, respondents have imposed penalty vide office order dated 29.9.2000 (Annexure A-9). Petitioner preferred an appeal (Annexure A-10), raising contentions also urged in this petition. Undisputedly, the Appellate Authority has neither adverted to nor dealt with the same, but instead passed a one line cryptic order rejecting the petitioner’s appeal. Consequently, as prayed for by the petitioner during the course of hearing, without going into the merits of the matter, on this short ground alone, petition is allowed and the impugned order (Annexure A-11) is quashed with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 4. Insofar as the prayer (v) is concerned, reply does not appear to be in consonance with the provisions of F.R. 24, which reads as under:- “F.R. 24: An increment shall ordinarily be drawn as a matter of course unless it is withheld. An increment may be withheld from a Government servant by the Central Government or by any authority to whom the Central Government may delegate this power under Rule 6, if his conduct has not been good or his work has not been satisfactory. In ordering the withholding of an increment, the withholding authority shall state the period for which it is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments.” 5. Before the Court, there is nothing to show that the Disciplinary Authority had issued any order of withholding the increment. Consequently, there is a direction to the respondents to release the same for the period commencing from the revocation of the order of suspension till 1.7.2000, the date on which petitioner was otherwise entitled to and eligible to the increment. Undisputedly petitioner stands retired. All consequential benefits towards the same be also released to him within the aforesaid period. 6. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. April 07, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.