(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6271 OF 2010 Prabhakar s/o. Ganesh Angarakhe, Age : 58 years, Occupation : Office Superintendent, R/o. Kalpana Nagar, Behind Former MLA Mr. Bhosale's residence, Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, Taluka & District : Osmanabad. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. C.V. Dharurkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.H. Dighe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 2. (2) Mr. S.B. Ghute, Advocate, for respondent no.3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 26th March 2010, passed by the respondent no.2 i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, thereby dismissing Appeal No. 2007/DB/Appeal/Cell-/76, challenging the order dated 16th July 2007, passed by the respondent no.3 / Chief Executive Officer. 3. The petitioner was in the employment of Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. He was served with show cause notice issued by the Chief Executive Officer, calling upon him to show cause as to why action for holding the meeting on 20th March 2007, for assessment of Jalswarajya Project work was not taken (3) by him inspite of instructions given to the petitioner in the meeting held on 17th March 2007. The petitioner submitted his explanation, submitting therein that he was not present in the meeting, full time, held on 17th March 2007, and as such, he could not be faulted with for the said lapses. However, inspite of the explanation being submitted, the respondent / Chief Executive Officer passed an order thereby imposing penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner. The same is also dismissed. Hence, the present petition. 4. Mr. C.V. Dharurkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Kulwantsingh Gill Vs. State of Punjab (1991(Supp.1) SCC 504), if an increment is withheld with cumulative effect, the same would amount to major penalty and it would be required to be preceded by a departmental inquiry. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further relies on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Narendra s/o. Motiram Bodkhe Vs. Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, and others (2005 Bom.C.R. 48). 5. Mr. S.B. Ghute, learned Counsel appearing for (4) respondent no.3 / Zilla Parishad, vehemently opposes the petition. 6. The issue is no more res integra. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Narendra s/o. Motiram Bodkhe (supra), relying on the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of Kulwantsingh Gill (supra), considering the same rule which governs the case of the petitioner, has held that though the penalty of withholding increments permanently is shown in the category of minor penalty, considering the nature of punishment, it is a major punishment which can be awarded after conducting inquiry. 7. In that view of the matter, the present case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, cited supra. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses "C" and "D". Needless to state, that the pensionary benefits, on the basis of what has been held herein above, shall be made applicable to the petitioner within a period of six months from today. (5) 9. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/6271wp