IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9606 of 1992 Date of Decision: 10.03.2009 Shri Manohar Lal Sharma, Revenue Accountant, at present posted at City Sub Division No. 1, Punjab State Electricity Board, Kapurthala. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Punjab State Electricity Board, through its Chairman. 2. The Chief Engineer, (D.S) North, Punjab State Electricity Board, Jalandhar. 3. The Chief Accounts Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S. Behl, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. * * * * HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order dated 14.12.1990 (Annexure P4), whereby penalty of stopping of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon petitioner. The appeal against the said order was dismissed vide order dated 08.01.1992 (Annexure P5). The said order has been challenged on the ground that such punishment is a major penalty, but the same has been imposed by adopting the procedure meant for minor penalty. In reply, it was averred that stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is a minor punishment in terms of Regulations 5 and 10 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations 1971. In Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the order imposing penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment. It was held to the following effect:- “When penalty was imposed withholding two increments i.e. for two years with cumulative effect, it would indisputably mean that the two increments earned by the employee was cut off as a measure of penalty for ever in his upward march of earning higher scale of pay. The clock was put back to a lower stage in the time scale of pay and on expiry of two years the clock started working from that stage afresh. The insidious effect of the impugned order, by necessary implication, is that the appellant employee is reduced in his time scale by two places and it is in perpetuity during the rest of the tenure of his service with a direction that two years' increments would not be counted in his time scale of pay as a measure of penalty. The words are the skin to the language which if peeled off its true colour or its resultant effects would become apparent. When the problem is approached from this perspective the effect is as envisaged under R. 5(v). Rule 5(iv) does not empower the disciplinary authority to impose penalty of withholding increments of pay with cumulative effect except after holding inquiry and following the prescribed procedure. Then the order would be without jurisdiction or authority of law, and it would be per se void.” In view of the above, the order passed by the respondents is void as it is not a minor penalty. Admittedly, due procedure for imposing major penalty was not followed. In view of the above, the order dated 14.12.1990 and order dated 08.01.1992 (Annexure P4 and Annexure P5) respectively are set- aside. The Writ Petition is thus allowed with no order as to costs. (HEMANT GUPTA) 10.03.2009 JUDGE Amodh