JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of impugned order as contained in Memo No.2709 dated 01.10.2018 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), whereby after conclusion of the Departmental Proceeding, the petitioner had been imposed with the punishment of withholding of three increments with non-cumulative effect. 2.1. The petitioner further prays for quashing of the Appellate Order as contained in Memo No.2948 dated 02.11.2023 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), issued by the Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the Departmental Appeal preferred by the petitioner had been dismissed and the punishment was confirmed. 2.2. The petitioner also prays that after setting aside the aforesaid impugned order dated 01.10.2018 and Appellate Order dated 02.11.2023, the benefits which have been withheld, be released. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the impugned orders have been passed in utter violation of the “Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016”. He submits that the enquiry report was not served upon the petitioner and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to rebut the materials which surfaced during enquiry. He submits that the second show cause before imposing the punishment was also not issued to the petitioner. It is his contention that though the punishment is minor in nature, yet it was the duty of the respondents to follow the procedure laid down in the aforesaid Rules. He further contends that for the self-same charge, a criminal case being Doranda P.S. Case No.535 of 2012 was instituted under Section 409 IPC and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. He submits that the Trial Court after a full-fledged trial, considering the evidences, acquitted the petitioner. He lastly submits that since the petitioner was acquitted for the self-same charge, the respondents should have considered the said acquittal and should have dropped the Departmental Proceeding. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondent – State opposes the argument of petitioner’s counsel and submits that admittedly the punishment which has been imposed is a ‘minor punishment’. He submits that in a minor punishment, it is not necessary to hold the regular Departmental Enquiry. As per him, in this case though a regular Departmental Enquiry was conducted but since the punishment is minor, it cannot be said that there is any procedural illegality. He submits that in a minor punishment, it is not necessary to hold the regular Departmental Enquiry. As per him, in this case though a regular Departmental Enquiry was conducted but since the punishment is minor, it cannot be said that there is any procedural illegality. He also submits that the petitioner filed an Appeal and the Appellate Authority gave opportunity to the petitioner to defend her case and on each point, the Appellate Authority had recorded her finding and thereafter the Appeal stood dismissed. He submits that acquittal in the criminal case will not have any binding effect in the Departmental Proceeding. He lastly submits that the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case is of 21 st August, 2019, whereas the original order of punishment was passed on 01.10.2018 i.e. prior to her acquittal. 5. The facts of this case are as follows: - 5.1. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 20.11.1997. She was appointed as a Headmaster w.e.f. 27.05.2009. 5.2. During the period 2011-12, while the petitioner was posted at the Hinoo United High School, Ranchi, an incident had occurred in the School, which resulted in issuance of Departmental Charge-sheet against the petitioner and also initiation of a criminal case being Doranda P.S. Case No.535 of 2012 dated 10.11.2012, for offences under Section 409 IPC and Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. 5.3. The petitioner was also put under suspension. 5.4. A Departmental charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. As per the said charge-sheet, there are three charges levelled against the petitioner, which are as follows :- i) the petitioner by her Car was transporting the food grains kept in the School building, which were meant for Midday Meal Scheme, for feeding the students of the said School. She was caught red-handed by the Police and was taken in custody. This conduct constitutes a serious offence and demonstrates the misuse of Centrally Sponsored Scheme, for personal gain. ii) the petitioner misappropriated the food grains, which were meant for the Midday Meal Scheme for feeding the students. iii) One Advocate made a complaint alleging that the petitioner had taken admission in B.ed course on the basis of forged document (College Leaving Certificate). 5.5. Based on the aforesaid charges in the charge-sheet dated 04.03.2013, the Departmental Proceeding was initiated. 5.6. iii) One Advocate made a complaint alleging that the petitioner had taken admission in B.ed course on the basis of forged document (College Leaving Certificate). 5.5. Based on the aforesaid charges in the charge-sheet dated 04.03.2013, the Departmental Proceeding was initiated. 5.6. In the said Departmental Proceeding, the Enquiry Officer after conclusion of the enquiry submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority. Based on the said report, three increments of the petitioner were forfeited but without cumulative effect. The said punishment is a ‘minor punishment’. 5.7. The Appeal of the petitioner also stood dismissed. 6. The Departmental Proceeding initiated against the petitioner is in accordance with the “Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016” (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 2016”). Rule 14 (Part-V) of the Rules of 2016, provides for the category of penalties i.e. “Minor Penalties and Major Penalties”. 6.1. In this case, since there is a withholding of increment without cumulative effect, the punishment is minor. Since the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is minor in nature, it is necessary to quote relevant clause of Rule 14 of the Rules of 2016, which classifies minor penalties. The same reads as hereunder:- “ Minor Penalties :- i) Censure; ii) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders; iii) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension. iv) Withholding of increments of pay without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension or withholding confirmation in service.” 6.2. Rule 17 of the Rules of 2016, lays down the procedure for initiating a proceeding to impose ‘major penalty’. 6.3. Further, Rule 19 of the Rules of 2016, lays down the procedure for imposing minor penalties. Rule 19 is as follows:- “ 19. Rule 17 of the Rules of 2016, lays down the procedure for initiating a proceeding to impose ‘major penalty’. 6.3. Further, Rule 19 of the Rules of 2016, lays down the procedure for imposing minor penalties. Rule 19 is as follows:- “ 19. Procedure for imposing minor penalties :- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub rule (3) of rule 18, no order imposing on a Government Servant any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 14 shall be made except after – a) informing the Government Servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; b) considering the representation, if any, submitted by the Government Servant under clause (a); c) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour.” 7. Be it noted that in this case, initially there is nothing on record to suggest as to whether the proceeding was initiated for imposing ‘minor punishment’ or not but the procedure which was followed, suggests that the procedure which was followed, was to impose a ‘minor penalty’. 8. Rule 17 of the Rules of 2016, provides for a detailed procedure including holding of a regular departmental enquiry and how the same should be conducted for imposing major penalty, but Rule 19 of the Rules of 2016, does not provide for that lengthy procedure as provided in Rule 17. 8.1. As per Rule 19 of the Rules of 2016, the Government servant has to be informed about the misbehaviour and the imputation and if an employer wants to take action against him, a reasonable opportunity has to be given to make a representation against the said proposal and the Disciplinary Authority after considering the representation will pass a final order recording findings of each of the imputation and misconduct. 8.2. From perusal of Rule 19 of the Rules of 2016, it is clear that it is not necessary to hold a full-fledged enquiry, if the employer wishes to impose a ‘minor penalty’. 8.2. From perusal of Rule 19 of the Rules of 2016, it is clear that it is not necessary to hold a full-fledged enquiry, if the employer wishes to impose a ‘minor penalty’. In this context, it may be noted that in the Departmental Proceeding, which has been instituted to punish the petitioner with ‘major penalty’, if the Disciplinary Authority finds fit after conclusion of the said procedure, may punish the delinquent-employee with a ‘minor penalty’ also, but a ‘major penalty’ cannot be imposed if the procedure followed is to punish for ‘minor penalty’. 8.3. From the aforesaid Rule 19, it is clear that a reasonable opportunity to file representation against the proposed punishment must be given to the employee. 9. In this case, admittedly such opportunity was not given to the petitioner. Neither the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner nor any notice to show cause was issued. The respondents thus have committed breach of procedure by not giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit her representation against the proposed action to be taken by the respondents. This is not only in violation of the provisions laid down in Rule 19 of the Rules of 2016, but also in violation of principles of natural justice. 10. Further, when I go through the impugned order dated 01.10.2018 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), I find that there is no finding against the petitioner on each of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour. In simple one line, the punishment order has been passed. As noted above, Rule 19 (c) of the Rules of 2016, provides for recording of finding by the Disciplinary Authority on each of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour, which is the procedure established by Law. 11. When a procedure is established by Law, the same has to be followed. It is well settled that if an act has to be done in a particular manner and which is mandated by a Statute, the same has to be done in that manner itself, otherwise not. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Khereshwar Mahadev VA Dauji Maharaj Samiti Aligarh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 774 , at para-15, has held as follows:- “ 15. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Khereshwar Mahadev VA Dauji Maharaj Samiti Aligarh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 774 , at para-15, has held as follows:- “ 15. Apart from that it is a settled law that when a law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone or not at all. ……………” 13. In this case, non-recording of finding by the Disciplinary Authority on each of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour, so far as this petitioner is concerned, is also in violation of Rule 19 (c) of the Rules of 2016, thus the same makes the initial order of punishment bad. 14. Further, from the record, I find that the charges levelled against the petitioner i.e. charge Nos.1 & 2, were the subject matter of the criminal case being Doranda P.S. Case No.535 of 2012. Admittedly, vide judgment dated 21.08.2019 in the Criminal Case, the petitioner had been acquitted. The allegation in the Departmental Charge-sheet is that the petitioner had misappropriated the food grains kept in the School building, which were meant for feeding the School children under the Scheme of Midday Meal. It is further alleged that the petitioner loaded the foodgrains in her vehicle, and when the vehicle was going to transport the foodgrains, the same was intercepted by the villagers. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Charge No.3 in the Departmental Proceeding was not proved. 15. The judgment of the Criminal Court has also been brought on record. After perusal of the same, I find that the Trial Court had arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the petitioner. No one could prove as to whether vehicle in which the materials were found, belong to the petitioner or not. The Trial Court also found that none of the villagers have also supported the aforesaid complaint, as no one turned up as witness. Thus, on the same charge, the Criminal Court had arrived at a finding that the petitioner is not guilty. Though, the judgment of the Criminal Court is after the judgment passed by the Disciplinary Authority, but admittedly the said judgment was prior in date when the Departmental Appeal of the petitioner was considered. Thus, on the same charge, the Criminal Court had arrived at a finding that the petitioner is not guilty. Though, the judgment of the Criminal Court is after the judgment passed by the Disciplinary Authority, but admittedly the said judgment was prior in date when the Departmental Appeal of the petitioner was considered. The Appellate Authority should have taken into consideration the Trial Court’s judgment in the criminal trial. 16. I have also gone through the Appellate Order dated 02.11.2023 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). The Appellate Order gives reason for arriving at the conclusion. The Appellate Authority also relies upon the enquiry report. Though the Appellate Authority had considered the enquiry report but the fact remains that the enquiry report was not served upon the petitioner. Without giving the opportunity to defend herself and rebut the materials which surfaced against the petitioner in the enquiry report, the same could not have been used against the petitioner. By doing so, the respondents also violated the principles of natural justice. 17. Considering what has been discussed above, I find merit in this writ petition. 17.1. The impugned order of punishment as contained in Memo No.2709 dated 01.10.2018 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition), being bad in law; in violation of principles of natural justice and also against the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules of 2016, is hereby set aside. 17.2. Consequently, the Appellate Order as contained in Memo No.2948 dated 02.11.2023 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), is also set aside. 17.3. The respondents are directed to release the increments of the petitioner, which have been withheld and pay the arrears thereof, within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 18. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed . No order as to costs. 19. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.