Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17643 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12493 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ravindra Babu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Special Secy. Sugar Industriees Lko And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Srivastava,Jaideep Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petition is being finally decided with the consent of the parties as purely question of law is involved. Under challenge is the punishment order dated 18.7.2018 as well as the appellate order dated 16.8.2024 passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 1 respectively. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while passing the impugned punishment order, both minor and major penalties have been awarded. It is the amalgam of both minor and major penalty. To substantiate his submissions, he has laid emphasis on the judgement of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India vs. S.C. Parashar, 2006 (3) SCC 167. Learned Standing Counsel, Shri Vijay Bajpai, has though opposed the aforesaid contentions and submitted that minor penalty can also be awarded along with major penalty. However, from the impugned punishment order, he could not show that the Superintending Authority while adopting the procedure for awarding major penalty at any point of time has applied its mind whether the case is made out for awarding minor penalty and substance of imputations, upon which the minor penalty has been awarded, has ever been confronted to the petitioner or the petitioner has ever been confronted with substantial imputations upon which the minor penalty has been awarded. Naturally, the reply to those imputations also have not been given by the petitioner. The Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Parashar (supra) has settled the law in this regard. The relevant paragraph no. 12 thereof is being extracted herein below: "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 instalments. 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." In view of the above, considering the short question involved in this petition, the petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 18.7.2018 and 16.8.2024 passed by the respondent nos. 2 and 1 respectively are set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. While passing the fresh order, the respondent no. 2 shall proceed from the stage of reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice served to him along with the inquiry report. Needless to say, the consequences of the order being set aside would be dependent upon the order to be passed by the authority concerned. Order Date :- 27.3.2025 Shravan Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench