HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10593 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no.1. 2. No notice be issued to respondents no.2 to 4 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed. 3. Notice is not being issued to respondents no.2 to 4 considering the fact that the order impugned dated 26.04.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, has been passed by respondent no.1. 4. The legal argument as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after departmental inquiry the disciplinary authority has passed the order impugned dated 26.04.2025 whereby a minor and major penalty have been imposed by means of the same order. The major penalty is withholding of one increment permanently while the minor penalty is censure. 5. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. S.C. Parashar - (2006) 3 SCC 167 the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order being an amalgamation of major and minor penalty both as such the same could not have been imposed by means of the same order. 6. In this regard, it would be apt to reproduce the observations of Hon'ble Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anupama Bhadauria Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Manoj Kumar Sharma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planning Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Supreme Court om the case of S.C. Parashar (supra), which are as under:- "12. The penalty imposed upon the respondent is an amalgam of minor penalty and major penalty. The respondent has been inflicted with three penalties : (1) reduction to the minimum of the time-scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect; (2) loss of seniority; and (3) recovery of 25% of the loss incurred by the Government to the tune of Rs.74,341.89p., i.e., Rs.18,585.47p. on account of damage to the Gypsy in 18 (eighteen) equal monthly installments. Whereas reduction of time- scale of pay with cumulative effect is a major penalty within the meaning of clause (v) of Rule 11 of the CCS Rules, loss of seniority and recovery of amount would come within the purview of minor penalty, as envisaged by clause (iii) and (iii)(a) thereof. The Disciplinary Authority, therefore, in our opinion acted illegally and without jurisdiction in imposing both minor and major penalties by the same order. Such a course of action could not have been taken in law." 7. Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, does not dispute the aforesaid proposition of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Parashar (supra). 8. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 26.04.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, is set-aside. The competent authority is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law which order would be passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. The writ petition stands disposed of. September 15, 2025 A. Katiyar WRIA No. 10593 of 2025 2 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench