IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8246/2008 Reserved on: 3.12.2010 Decided on: 9.12.2010 _____________________________________________ Ram Singh Thakur. Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. S.R. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was served with a memorandum dated 16.1.2001 under rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Control, Classification and Control) Rules, 1965. He filed detailed reply on 19.2.2001. However, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 5.7.2001 imposed the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Petitioner made a representation against the same on 31.7.2001. It has been decided against him on 1.1.2002. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No . 2 2. Mr. S.R. Sharma has strenuously argued that the penalty of withholding one increment cumulatively amounts to major penalty and the same could not be imposed without holding inquiry under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He then contended that the period of suspension was required to be regularized. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that penalty of imposition of withholding one increment cumulatively has rightly been imposed upon the petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. It is no more res integra that the imposition of penalty of withholding one increment cumulatively amounts to major penalty. Procedure prescribed for major penalty is under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Admittedly, in this case, petitioner has been charge-sheeted under rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1965. In view of this, the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect could not be imposed upon the petitioner under rule 16 of the Central Civil Services 3 (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The reply filed by the petitioner to the memorandum dated 16.1.2001 has not been taken into consideration in its right perspective by the Disciplinary Authority. Petitioner filed detailed reply to the memorandum dated 16.1.2001 on 19.2.2001. The grounds/pleas taken in the reply by the petitioner were required to be discussed by the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been rejected without a speaking order. It is settled law by now that the appellate order must be speaking/reasoned order. 6. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-2 dated 5.7.2001 and Annexure A-5 dated 1.1.2002 are quashed and set aside. The period of suspension of the petitioner is directed to be regularized. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 9.12. 2010 *awasthi*