[2025:RJ-JP:32594] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1083/2002 Satya Narain Sharma S/o Shri Sagar Mal Sharma, aged about 52 years, R/o Near Bharat Gas Agencies, Ramganj, Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Pr. Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Director, Agriculture Marketing, Government of Rajasthan, Krishi Pant Bhawan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta with Ms. Sampati Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Joshi, Additional G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 19/08/2025 1. Petitioner in the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 10.04.1984 passed by the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti 'A' Grade, Alwar, in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority as well as order dated 09.07.1984, whereby in appeal the penalty has although been modified but the petitioner was not exonerated from the charges. 2. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that charge-sheet dated 23.10.1982 was issued against the petitioner containing as many as seven charges relating to alleged embezzlement committed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bare perusal of the charge-sheet would reveal that it was issued with pre-occupied mind and in a prejudiced manner for the reason that charge-sheet starts with the words that one inquiry was conducted [2025:RJ-JP:32594] (2 of 11) [CW-1083/2002] with regard to embezzlement and on the basis of inquiry report charges have been leveled against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after issuance of the charge-sheet although the petitioner was granted an opportunity to submit reply to the charge-sheet, yet no inquiry whatsoever was conducted thereafter. Neither any opportunity to place evidence on record was given, nor any other procedure for the purpose of imposing major penalty was adopted by the respondents. 5. Further it was submitted that vide order dated 10.04.1984 penalty of withholding five annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner along with other ancillary penalty. The petitioner filed appeal against the penalty order before the Appellate Authority, however, the other penalties have although been diluted yet the major penalty of withholding five grade increments with cumulative effect has been maintained by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.07.1984. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that although Discipline and Appeal Rules of respondent-Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is silent as to whether withholding of grade increments with cumulative effect would be a major penalty or minor penalty, yet under the similar circumstances where Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the Rules of 1958') also contain a similar confusion, Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna Dutta Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1984 SCC OnLine Raj 298 has clarified the position and it has been held [2025:RJ-JP:32594] (3 of 11) [CW-1083/2002] that the penalty of withholding annual grade increments with cumulative effect shall be treated as major penalty. 7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504, where the pari materia provisions of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was categorically held that withholding of annual grade increments with cumulative effect shall be treated as major penalty. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that procedure for imposing major penalty has been prescribed under Rule 4 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules which are part of Appendix-B of Rajasthan Krishi Upaj (Mandi Samiti Karamchari) Seva Niyam, 1975, which also provide for a detailed inquiry including recording of evidence and preparation of inquiry report and further opportunity to represent against such report. No such procedure has been followed in the instant case, therefore, the impugned orders of penalty as well as appellate order are liable to be quashed and set aside. 9. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that feeling aggrieved by the penalty as well as appellate order, he has also preferred one review petition yet the same has been rejected being not maintainable. Therefore, he has approached this Court by way of this writ petition. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondent-Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti is an autonomous body and is not governed by the Rules of 1958 [2025:RJ-JP:32594] (4 of 11) [CW-1083/2002] and has framed its own Rules which are in the Appendix-B of the Rules of 1975. As per aforesaid Rules withholding of grade increments has not been shown as major penalty, therefore, after conducting preliminary inquiry where the petitioner was found guilty, in order to provide opportunity of hearing, charge-sheet was issued and after examining the reply to the charge-sheet, the Disciplinary Authority found that the petitioner was guilty of embezzlement, however, a lenient view was taken and instead of dismissing or removing the petitioner, lesser penalty of withholding five grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed. 11. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that even the procedure for imposing the penalty is altogether different in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti. The Disciplinary Authority in fact proposes the penalty which is further approved by the Director and only after his approval the order has been passed, in which there is no infirmity or illegality. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 13. Dominant question involved in the instant case is as to whether penalty of withholding five grade increments with cumulative effect can be considered as minor penalty or major penalty and if it is to be considered as major penalty then whether procedure of detailed inquiry as contemplated under Rule 4 of the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules prevailing in respondent-Samiti are to be followed or not. 14. It is relevant to consider the effect of withholding annual grade increments with cumulative effect, and without [2025:RJ-JP:32594] (5 of 11) [CW-1083/2002] cumulative effect. In case any employee is punished with a penalty of withholding grade increments with cumulative effect, then it would adversely affect him permanently for his entire service tenure and he would suffer the consequential rigour thereof in pay revision, selection grade, retiral benefits etc., and only on account of punishing him with a major penalty in services record, he may also be deprived of further promotion. Whereas, in comparison thereof, whenever an employee is punished through a penalty of withholding grade increments without cumulative effect, such penalty can be termed as temporary penalty and after expiry of the period for which such penalty has been imposed, the pay of the concerned employee stands revived. 15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill (supra) has considered a similar position in Rules prevailing in Punjab Civil Services and after examining the different penalties has held that penalty of withholding grade increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and a regular inquiry is required to be conducted before imposing major penalty. Relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as here under: "(4.) Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5(iv). But sub-rule (v) postulates reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the government employee shall earn increments of pay during the period of such reductions and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. It is an independent head of penalty and it could be imposed as punishment in an appropriate case. It is one of the major penalties. The impugned order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect whether would fall within the meaning of Rule 5(v)? If it so falls Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules [2025:RJ-JP:32594] (6 of 11) [CW-1083/2002] require conducting of regular enquiry. The contention of Shri Nayar, learned counsel for the State is that withholding two increments with cumulative effect is only a minor penalty as it does not amount to reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay. We find it extremely difficult to countenance the contention. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it certainly comes within the meaning of Rule 5(iv) of the Rules. But 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. In other words the clock is put back to a lower stage in the time scale of pay and on expiry of two years the clock starts 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 we broach the problem from this perspective the effect is as envisaged under Rule 5(v) of the Rules. It is undoubted that the Division Bench in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab [ILR (1985) 2 P&H 193 : (1985) 1 SLJ 513 (P&H)] , P.C. Jain, A.C.J. speaking for the Division Bench, while considering similar question, in paragraph 8 held that the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, by no stretch of imagination falls within clause (v) of Rule 5 or in Rule 4.12 of Punjab Civil Services Rules. It was further held that under clause (v) of Rule 5 there has to be a reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by the competent authority as a measure of penalty and the period for which such a reduction is to be effective has to be stated and on restoration it has further to be specified whether the reduction shall operate to postpone the future increments of his pay. In such cases withholding of the increments without cumulative effect does not at all arise. In case where the increments are withheld with or without cumulative effect the government employee is never reduced to a lower stage of time scale of [2025:RJ-JP:32594] (7 of 11) [CW-1083/2002] pay. Accordingly it was held that clause (iv) of Rule 5 is applicable to the facts of that case. With respect we are unable to agree with the High Court. If the literal interpretation is adopted the learned Judges may be right to arrive at that conclusion. But if the effect is kept at the back of the mind, it would always be so, the result will be the conclusion as we have arrived at. If the reasoning of the High Court is given acceptance, it would empower the disciplinary authority to impose, under the garb of stoppage of increments, (sic stoppage) of earning future increments in the time scale of pay even permanently without expressly stating so. This preposterous consequence cannot be permitted to be permeated. 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. Considering from this angle we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order would come within the meaning of Rule 5(v) of the Rules; it is a major penalty and imposition of the impugned penalty without enquiry is per se illegal. (5.) The further contention of Shri Nayar that the procedure under Rule 8 was followed by issuance of the show cause notice and consideration of the explanation given by the appellant would meet the test of Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules is devoid of any substance. Conducting an enquiry, de hors the rules is no enquiry in the eye of law. It cannot be countenanced that the pretence of an enquiry without reasonable opportunity of adducing evidence both by the department as well as by the appellant in rebuttal, examination and cross-examination of the witnesses, if examined, to be an enquiry within the meaning of Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules. Those rules admittedly envisage, on denial of the charge by the delinquent officer, to conduct an enquiry giving reasonable opportunity to the presenting officer as well as the delinquent officer to lead evidence in support of the charge and in rebuttal thereof, giving adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the department and to examine witnesses if intended on his behalf and to place his version; consideration thereof by the enquiry officer, if the disciplinary authority himself is not the [2025:RJ-JP:32594] (8 of 11) [CW-1083/2002] enquiry officer. A report of the enquiry in that behalf to be placed before the disciplinary authority who then is to consider it in the manner prescribed and to pass an appropriate order as for the procedure in vogue under the Rules. The gamut of this procedure was not gone through. Therefore, the issuance of the notice and consideration of the explanation is not a procedure in accordance with Rules 8 and 9. Obviously, the disciplinary authority felt that the enquiry into minor penalty is not necessary and adhering to the principles of natural justice issued the show cause notice and on receipt of the reply from the delinquent officer passed the impugned order imposing penalty thinking it to be a minor penalty. If it is considered, as stated earlier, that it would be only a minor penalty, the procedure followed certainly meets the test of the principles of natural justice and it would be a sufficient compliance with the procedure. In view of the finding that the impugned order is a major penalty certainly then a regular enquiry has got to be conducted and so the impugned order is clearly illegal. The trial court rightly granted the decree. The judgment and the decree of the High Court is vitiated by manifest illegality. At this distance of time it is not expedient to direct an enquiry under Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and decree of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored but in the circumstances without costs." 16. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna Dutta Sharma (supra) has also considered the effect of penalties of withholding increments with or without cumulative effect and while considering the Rules of 1958, it has been held that withholding of grade increments with cumulative effect amounts to major penalty and cannot be imposed without conducting a regular inquiry. Relevant part of the aforesaid judgment is being reproduced as here under: "(2.)Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant Krishna Dutta Sharma was an officer of the Rajasthan Administrative Service and posted as Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Nohar at the relevent time. A disciplinary action was initiated against him by memorandum Ex. 1 [2025:RJ-JP:32594] (9 of 11) [CW-1083/2002] dated September 8, 1976, under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). The above rule 17 deals with the procedure for imposing minor penalties. The appellant was furnished with statement of allegations sent along with the memorandum Ex. 1. The appellant submitted a reply denying the allegations and the State Government after considering the reply of the appellant passed an order Ex. 3 dated November 20, 1968 imposing a penalty of withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect. A review application filed by the appellant was dismissed on July 9, 1969. The appellant applied for a copy on October 13, 1969, but was refused by memorandum dated Dec., 9, 1969. The appellant then applied to the Govt. for review on May 5, 1972. It was also rejected on the ground that no fresh point has been raised in the review petition. In these circumstances, the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the order imposing the penalty of withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect. (10.) A perusal of the seven kinds of penalties specified under Rule 14 shows that under clause (ii) only withholding of increment has been mentioned but it nowhere specified that withholding of increments could also be given with cumulative effect. In case a penalty of withholding of grade increment is imposed for one year or two years then such Government servant is put to a financial loss for a limited period and he becomes entitled to his usual grade increment after such period of one year or two years. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:32594] (10 of 11) [CW-1083/2002] 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. We are, thus, clearly of the view that in the present case the penalty imposed on the appellant was a major penalty and as the procedure contemplated under Rule 16 has not been followed as such the order imposing penalty is totally without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. (11.) In C. Veera Chowdaish's case (supra), A Divsion Bench of the Mysore High Court while relying on an earlier case of that Court in J. Issac v. Director of Collegiate Education—Writ Petition 2601/1963, observed as under:— X X X (12.) In Alakendu Sarkar's case (supra) the Calcutta High Court held that under Rule 8(ii) of West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971, no penalty of withholding of increment with cumulative effect has been provided and as such the order of withholding increments with cumulative effect was bad. (13.) It is pertinent to mention that in the above case sub-rule (ii) though provided the punishment of “withholding of increment or promotion” but it was held that it did not provide for a penalty of withholding of increment with cumulative effect. In clause (ii) of Rule 14 of the Rules in Rajasthan also an identical penalty of withholding of increments or promotion has been provided but it also does not make a mention of penalty of withholding of increment with cumulative effect. (14.) Learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ram Lubhaya's case (supra) also held that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect was a major punishment within the meaning of Rule 5 of the Panjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. In the above Punjab case withholding of promotion had been included in minor penalties and reduction to a lower stage in time-scale of pay had been included in major penalties. G.C. Mittal J., in the above case placed reliance on C. Veera Chowdaish's case (supra) and Alakendu Sarkar's case (supra) referred to above and held that withholding of increments with cumulative effect would be considered as a major penalty. (15.) In view of the fact that the order imposing penalty in this case was totally wrong & illegal as [2025:RJ-JP:32594] (11 of 11) [CW-1083/2002] the same violated the mandatory provisions of Rule 16 of the Rules, in our view, the question of delay will not come in the way of the appellant. That apart, the appellant has applied for furnishing him with the copy of the order rejecting his earlier application for review, but the same was neither furnished nor any reasons were assigned to him for dismissing his review petition. Thereafter, he had filed another review and the same was entertained and its rejection was made known to the appellant on February 2, 1973 as such the delay in the facts and circumstances of this case is duly explained. As the appellant succeeds in this appeal on the above legal question decided in his favour, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the second question raised by the appellant regarding the merits of the case." 17. Thus, it is abundantly clear in the light of aforesaid judgments that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner regarding withholding of five grade increments with cumulative effect was a major penalty. It has been admitted by learned counsel for the respondents that no regular inquiry, which is usually conducted for imposing major penalty, was held in the case of petitioner while imposing the impugned punishments. Under these circumstances, the impugned penalty order as well as appellate order cannot be allowed to sustain. 18. Resultantly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed and order dated 10.04.1984 as well as appellate order dated 09.07.1984 are hereby quashed and set aside. Petitioner is entitled for consequential benefits which shall be sanctioned and released from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. 19. Ordered accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/38