In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S. A. No. 2831 of 1985 (O&M) Date of decision: April 02, 2009 State of Punjab .. Appellant Vs. Mohan 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 19.2.1985 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jallandhar, dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Punjab against the judgment dated decree dated 17.4.1984 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, declaring the orders dated 1.10.1981, 14.1.1982, 25.10.1973, 15.11.1977, 9.5.1978 and 29.5.1979, whereby 16 increments of the plaintiff were stopped with cumulative effect, as illegal, void, unlawful, unconstitutional, arbitrary, capricious and against the provisions of law. The only substantial question of law in the present appeal is. “whether the punishment regarding stopping of the increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty entailing regular enquiry as provided under the Punjab Civil Services, Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1970?”. Arguments heard. The trial court as well as the first Appellate Court had arrived at the conclusion that the enquiry as envisaged under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1970 (herein referred as 'the Rules') was required to be held before stopping the increments of the employee with cumulative effect as it was major penalty. There is no denying a fact that 16 increments of the respondent were stopped with cumulative effect. The record shows that no regular enquiry was ever held R.S. A. No. 2831 of 1985 (O&M) -2- *** against the plaintiff-respondent before passing the impugned orders. It has been held in case State of Punjab vs. Ram Lubhaya, 1982 (2) S.L.R 82 that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect amounts to major punishment entailing regular enquiry in accordance with rules. Since no enquiry was held, therefore, I have no option but to affirm the concurrent findings returned by both the courts below and as such order of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect without holding regular enquiry is void. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeal the same is hereby dismissed. However, it may be observed that the respondent must have been retired by now, as such he is entitled to all benefits accruing out of the judgment along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum up to date. April 02, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge