JUDGMENT
N.K. Sodhi, J.
1. Civil Misc. No. 4031-C of 1994 came up for hearing today but on the request of counsel for the parties, the main appeal has been taken-up for hearing and final disposal.
2. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur upholding that of the trial Court whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for a declaration that the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect imposed upon him was null and void has been decreed.
3. Raj Kumar plaintiff was working as Inspector in the Food and Supplies Department of the State Government. By an order passed on 25.2.1981, by the Director Food and Supplies, Punjab, he was punished and his one annual increment was stopped with cumulative effect. The appeal filed by him against this order was dismissed by the Secretary, Food and Supplies, Punjab, Chandigarh. Both these orders were challenged by the plaintiff in the suit filed by him out of which the present appeal has arisen.
4. It is common case of the parties that the Department while imposing the punishment did not follow the procedure prescribed by Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 as it proceeded on the basis that the stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect was only a minor punishment for which the procedure was not required to be followed. Both the Courts came to the conclusion that the procedure prescribed by Rule 8 ought to have been followed and since it was not followed, the impugned orders were declared null and void and the suit was consequently decreed. The State of Punjab has come up in second appeal.
5. It has now been authoritatively settled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gilt v. State of Punjab, 1991(1) Current Law Journal 143, that the stoppage of an increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and before the same could be imposed it is necessary to follow the regular procedure of Rules 8 and 9 of the. aforesaid Rules. Since, this procedure has admittedly not been followed in the instant case, the order imposing the punishment cannot be sustained and the Courts below were right in declaring them null and void.
6. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in appeal and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.