1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 472/1997 Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur & Anr. Vs. Satya Narayan Swamy and Another. ......... Date of Order : 01/12/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. B.S.Bhati for the petitioners. None present for the respondent No.1 though served. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners employer has challenged the Award Annex.4 dated 24.01.1996 passed by Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner (for short 'the Tribunal' hereinafter). I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Carefully gone through the award impugned. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on two Division Bench decisions of this Court in Fateh Singh Jhajaria Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors., D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.282/2003 decided on 23.09.2004 and in 2 Rajasthan State road Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. Shri Inder Singh and Anr., D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.367/1998 decided on 17.2.2005. A reference was made by the State Govt. to the Tribunal as to whether the stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect by order dated 5.12.1985 is legal, valid and proper. The respondent No.2, Industrial Tribunal held that penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect by order dated 5.12.1985 is neither valid nor proper, however, stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect is valid. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that this question has been considered and decided by two Division Benches of this Court. In Fateh Singh Jhajaria Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. (supra), while considering the contention that such penalty having not been provided under the Rules, could not have been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, which was raised on the premise that under the Disciplinary Rules one of the penalty envisaged is only withholding of increment but it does not specify whether under the Rules with cumulative effect or without cumulative effect, this Court held that the penalty provided is withholding of increments. Whether it is with or without cumulative effect may result in altering the nature of the penalty to 3 be minor or major but the penalty remains withholding of increments and the penalty of withholding having been included as one of the penalties which can be imposed in case of any proven misconduct, the contention does not appear to be well founded relying on a decision of this Court in Krishna Dutta Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan, RLR 1987 (1) 346 wherein this Court held as under:- “While in case of withholding of grade increment with cumulative effect the Government servant is put to a financial loss for the entire period of his future service and the result is that he is put to one grade increment less for the entire period of his remaining service. In our view such penalty of withholding of grade increment with cumulative effect and reduction to a lower stage in the time scale as provided as one of the penalties under clause (iv) of Rule 14 are equivalent and have the same effect. Learned Additional Government Advocate was unable to explain any difference in the aforesaid two kinds of penalties. If a Government servant is given a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the same time scale, then also such Government servant is put to a loss of one grade increment for the entire period of his service after such punishment. It remains undisputed that the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale as specified in clause (iv) of Rule 14 is a major penalty and procedure for enquiry has to be followed as provided under Rule 16 of the Rules.” A similar view was taken by Division Bench of this Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Vs. Shri Inder Singh and Anr. (supra). In this view of the matter, in view of two Division Bench decision of this Court referred herein above, in my view, the award impugned deserves to be modified to the extent that the penalty of 4 withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect imposed by the petitioners is justified. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the penalty of withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect imposed by the petitioners is justified. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 5 S.B.CIVIL MISC. STAY PETITION NO. 394/97 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 472/97 DATE OF ORDER : 01/12/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR. Mr. B.S.Bhati for the petitioners. None present for the respondent No.1 though served. Since the writ petition itself has been allowed, the stay petition stands disposed of. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp