Judgment:
K.C. Agrawal, C.J.
1. Respondent Kamlesh Jain was given punishment of with holding of three grade increments with cumulative effect. By filing a writ petition before Single Judge, he challenged that punishment order, on the ground that being a major penalty, the appellant, Raj. State Electricity Board, was obliged to follow the procedure applicable to impose such penalty. The learned Single Judge held it to be a major penalty and allowed the writ petition. Against the said order dated 14.8.1992 passed by the learned Single Judge, this special appeal has been preferred.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent.
3. Regulation 5 of the RSEB Employees (C.C.A.) Regulations, 1962 is relevant for the purpose of deciding the present controversy, which reads as follows:
5. Penalties:
(1) The appointing authority or any authority higher than the appointing authority or any lower authority to whom power may be delegated by the Board in this behalf may inflict on any employee the penalties specified below for good and sufficient reasons which shall be recorded:
(a) Censure
(b) Withholding or postponing of increments or promotion permanently or for specified period.
(c) ...
(d) ...
(e) ...
Penalties mentioned at S. No. (a) to (d) are minor ones and those at S. No. (e) to (h) are major ones.
4. Learned Single Judge has proceeded on the basis of decision so of this Court and the Apex Court that penalty of stoppage of annual grade increments with cumulative effect is major penalty. That is the settled position of law. But the language which has been used in Rule 5 referred to above makes it clear that withholding or postponing the increments or promotion permanently or for specified period has been considered to be minor penalty. The words permanently or for specified period' were not mentioned in the rule on the basis of which interpretation has been given by this Court and by the Supreme Court and therefore unless the rule is declared invalid, the procedure for minor penalty alone was required to be followed. No prayer has been made for declaring the provisions of Rule 5 as invalid nor the matter has been considered by the learned Single Judge in this light and the respondents were, therefore, required the follow the procedure which was prescribed for minor penalties and which has been followed in this case. The said penalty cannot be set aside on the ground that it should be considered as a major penalty and then the procedure thereof should have been followed. Since the rule specifically has contemplated it to be a minor penalty the procedure which has been followed is in accordance with law. It has been brought to our notice that an appeal had been filed against the with-holding of three grade increments with cumulative effect and the same has already been dismissed. The said order was not challenged before the learned Single Judge.
5. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.8.92 is set aside.