IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 38 of 2010. Reserved on: 12.11.2010. Decided on: 24.11.2010. _________________________________________________________ Jai Kumar Verma. … Petitioner. Versus The Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. M.C. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J.: Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”, for brevity) on 29 November, 2003. Shri O. P. Sharma was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He submitted the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority issued memorandum dated 4th April, 2005 under Rule 16 of the Rules to the petitioner alongwith statement of mis-conduct and misbehaviour. The penalty of withholding of two 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - increments with cumulative effect and recovery of `10,850/- with interest @ 12% per annum was proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner. Petitioner filed detailed reply to the same on 12.4.2005. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner on 25th July, 2005 and also ordered recovery of a sum of `10,850/- with interest @ 12%. The petitioner filed appeal against order dated 25th July, 2005 on 18.9.2005. The Principal Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the appeal on 10.11.2005. 2. Mr. M.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the penalty of withholding of two interments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and the same could not be imposed under Rule 16 of the Rules. According to Mr. Negi, the disciplinary proceedings were, in fact, initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Rules and the penalty of withholding of two increments could always be imposed upon the petitioner. According to him, the issuance of notice under Rule 16 of the Rules is only an irregularity. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 4. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the disciplinary authority after receipt of the inquiry report has issued memorandum to the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rules. The penalty of withholding of two increments and recovery of `10,850/- with interest @ 12% was proposed to be imposed. Consequently, the petitioner was given opportunity to file reply to the show cause notice. The disciplinary authority has imposed - 3 - the penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect and has also ordered recovery of `10,850/- with interest @ 12%. The imposition of penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty. The penalties which could be imposed upon a Government employee are provided under Rule 11 of the Rules. Rule 11(iv) of the Rules only provides for withholding of increments of pay. The disciplinary authority has wrongly relied upon Rule 11(iv) to impose the penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. 5. In this case the disciplinary authority ought to have supplied the copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent and after considering his representation could impose any of the penalties provided under the law. In the instant case, surprisingly, notice under Rule 16 of the Rules has been issued to the petitioner and the penalty of withholding of two increments cumulatively has been imposed. The course adopted by the disciplinary authority is contrary to law. In fact, it was always open to the disciplinary authority to impose the penalty of withholding of two increments, but without referring to Rules 11(iv) and 16 of the Rules. The appellate authority also has not decided the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is partly allowed. Annexures A-1, dated 25.7.2005 and A-6, dated 10.11.2005 are quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that the disciplinary authority shall supply copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner to enable him to make a representation and thereafter it shall be open for the competent authority to proceed with the matter in accordance with law after taking into consideration the representation - 4 - made by the petitioner to the inquiry report. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. November 24, 2010. (sck).