In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S. A. No. 2275 of 1985 (O&M) Date of decision: April 02, 2009 State of Punjab and others .. Petitioners Vs. Gulwant Lal .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Surender Kapoor, Addl. A.G. Punjab. A.N. Jindal, J Substantial question of law is taken on record. This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.2.1985, whereby the appeal preferred against the judgment dated 19.7.1984 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Jallandhar, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, was dismissed. The only substantial question of law in the present appeal is. “whether it was obligatory on the part of the appellants to hold enquiry in case of awarding major penalty of stopping four increments with cumulative effect?”. Arguments heard. Having perused the judgment of both the Courts below, it transpires that both the courts below have returned the findings of fact that stopping of four increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty inviting enquiry under Rule 8 of the Punjab Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1970 (herein referred as 'the Rules'), therefore, the enquiry as envisaged under the Rules was essential to be conducted before passing such order. Admittedly, no such enquiry was held as is highlighted from the judgment. Learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab also could not refute this legal proposition. Thus, stopping of the increments with cumulative effect without holding enquiry was violative of the Rules as has been laid down in case State of Punjab vs. Ram Lubhaya, 1982 (2) S.L.R 82. R.S. A. No. 2275 of 1985 (O&M) -2- *** Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal the same is hereby dismissed. However, it may be observed that the respondent, if has retired, would be entitled to all the benefits accruing out of the judgments passed along with interest @ 6% per annum up to date. April 02, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge