JUDGMENT
S.S. Byas, J.
1. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for quashing the order Annexure-1 dated January 24, 1985 of the Additional Registrar, Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur, by which the penalty of the stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed on him.
2. Briefly recapitulated, the case set-up in the petition is that the petitioner was working in Stamp Reporting Section in the Bench of the High Court at Jaipur in May, 1984. On May 10, 1984, he passed the file of S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 169/1984 Narain Ram v. State of Rajas than without ascertaining whether the impugned order was filed by the party or that it was on record. When the case came up before a learned Single, he passed an order on July 25, 1984 directing the Deputy Registrar to take necessary action against the defaulter. Thereupon the Additional Registrar initiated an-inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘the C.C.A. Rules). The petitioner was informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegations on which the action was proposed to be taken. He was called upon to make any representation and file reply or explanation as he wished to make. The petitioner submitted his reply and representation and the same was taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority namely, the Additional Registrar. He was not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The result was that the penalty of with-holding of two grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner by the Additional Registrar by the impugned order Annexure-1. The impugned order was assailed mainly on two grounds: (1) the Additional Registrar was not the Disciplinary Authority and as such he could not impose any penalty; and (2) the penalty for with-holding two grade increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and could not be awarded without following the procedure under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules. The procedure under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules for imposing major penalties was not followed by the Additional Registrar.
3. In the return filed by the respondents, all the allegations were accepted, that (1) the Additional Registrar war not be Disciplinary Authority; and (2) the withholding of increments with cumulative effect amounts to a major penalty.
4. So far this Court is concerned, a consistent view has been taken that the imposition of with holding of gradre increments with cumulative effect amounts to a major penalty and it can be awarded after following the procedure under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules. Admittedly, in the instant case, no procedure under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules was followed. The petition should, therefore, be allowed.
5. We have heard Mr. M. Mridul for the petitioner and Mr. D.S. Shishodia, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. As a rule, we should follow the view expressed by this Court, according to which the with holding of increments with cumulative effect has been taken to be a major penalty. Mr. Shishodia however, wants that the view taken by this Court requires reconsideration. We had, therefore, heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
7. The petitioner, as regards the disciplinary action, is governed by the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953. Rule 12 of these Rules, enumerating the penalties, which can be imposed on a delinquent, is a re-production of Rule 14 of the C.C.A. Rules. For convenience, we may reproduce Rule 12 of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953 (for short ‘the High Court Rules):
12–Penalties : The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed by the Chief Justice or subject to any special order of the Chief Justice, by the Registrar upon the persons serving on the staff attached to the High Court, namely:
(i) Censure;
(ii) with-holding of increments or promotion;
(iii) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government by negligence or breach of any law, rule or order;
(iv) Reduction to a lower service, grade or post, or to a lower time scale or to a lower stage in the time scale or in the case of pension to an amount lower than that due under the rules;
(v) compulsory retirement on proportionate pension:
(vi) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for further employment;
(vii) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be disqualification for future employment
…(rest not necessary)
Rule 13 of the High Court Rules lays down mode of inquiries for imposing the penalties. It reads as under:
13–Inquiries into conduct of members of staff: The rules or orders regulating inquiries into allegations against servants of the State Government shall apply with the necessary modifications and adoptations to inquiries into the conduct of members of the staff attached to the High Court.
8. Rule 13 of the High Court Rules has. thus, adopted the C.C.A. Rules for conducting and regulating the inquiries in connection with the misconduct of member of the staff of the High Court.
9. Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules lays down the procedure for mposing major penalties while Rule 17 lays down the procedure for imposing minor penalties. Penalties specified in Clauses (i) to (iii) of Rule 14, namely, (i) censure, (ii) with-holding of increments or promotion; and (iii) recovery of the pecuniary loss, have been taken as minor penalties under Rule 17 while the remaining four penalties, specified in Clauses (iv) to (vii), including that of the reduction to a lower stage in the time scale, have been taken as major penalties under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules.
10. The clinching issue before us is: whether the imposition of the penalty of with-holding of grade increments with cumulative effect amounts to a major penalty. There is a sharp cleavage of judicial opinion on this point and the views expressed by the different High Courts may be summarised as under:
(1) With-holding of increments with cumulative effect, when not provided by the Rules, cannot be imposed at all. This view has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in Alakendar Sarkar v. State of West Bangal and Ors. 1981 (2) S.L.R. 33. It may be mentioned that Rule 8 of the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 enumerates the penalties which can be imposed on a government servant. This rule, no doubt, provides the penalty of with-holding of increments. It does not, however, provide the with-holding of increments with cumulative effect. The learned Judge took the view that since the with-holding of increments with cumulative effect is not provided as a penalty in Rule 8 of the West Bengal Service Rules, 1971, no such penalty can be imposed at all;
(2) with-holding of increments with cumulative effect amounts to a major penally because it amounts to reduction to a lower stage in the time scale. This view has been taken by a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in C Veera Chowdaiah v. State of Mysore and Anr. 1973 (1) SLR 241. It may be mentioned that Rule 8 of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 provide penalties, which can be imposed on government servant. Sub-rule (v) of Rule 8 of the Mysore Rules is in pan materia with Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 14 of the C.C.A. Rules of, our State and Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 8 of the High Court Rules.
(3) With-holding of increments with cumulative effect does not amount to major penalty because reduction of a government servant to a lower stage in the time scale does not take place immediately or in the presenti. This view has been taken in Surjeet Singh v. Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway by a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court. Govindram v. State of Orissa 1977 Lab. & Industrial Cases 1684 by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court and Srawan Singh v. State of Punjab & Haryana 1985 (2) SLR 76 by a Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court;
(4) So far our High Court is concerned, a consistent view has been taken that the with-holding of increments with cumulative effect amounts to a reduction to a lower stage in the time scale and as such it is a major penalty, vide State of Rajasthan v. Ratan Lal 1967 RLW 266, Nenmal v. Superintendent of Police 1967 RLW 344, Krishna Dutta Sharma v. State of Rajasthan 1987 (1) SLR 346, Dr. S. M. Gupta v. State and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 79/1975 decided on April 13, 1982, and numerous other decisions.
11. Mr. Shishodia learned counsel appearing for the respondents strived his best to impress upon us that the view taken by the Allahabad, Orissa and Punjab & Haryana High Courts in the cases cited above, lays down the correct law. We should, therefore, also fall in the line with them. It was argued, on the basis of the reasoning given by the aforesaid High Courts of Allahabad, Orissa and Punjab & Haryana that where the increments are with-held with or without cumulative effect, the government servant is never reduced to a lower stage.
12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submission of Mr. Shishodia and we are unable to accept his submission. The rationale behind the decisions of Allahabad, Orissa and Punjab & Haryana High Courts is that “with-holding of increments” and “reduction to a lower stage of time scale” are two different penalties. According to these decisions there must be a reduction of pay to a lower stage in the time scale in present and not any loss of prospects of advantage in future. The “with-holding of increments” has no immediate effect of reducing the pay to a lower stage in the time scale. We are unable to find ourselves an agreement with the aforesaid view.
13. By with-holding of the grade increments with cumulative effect, the hand of the clock is put back as though the government servant was not in service for those years for the purpose of computation of increments. If the effect of the stoppage of grade increments with future effect is reduction of the petitioner to a lower stage in the time scale, it necessarily means the imposition of a major penalty as specified in Rule 12 (Clause (iv) of the High Rules and Rule 14 (Clause (iv), of the C.C.A. Rules.
14. In State of Rajasthan v. Ratan Lal (supra), a learned Single Judge pointed out the distinction between “reduction in rank” and “reduction in time scale”. It was observed:
In other words, even when an officer is punished by way of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale it was necessary under the rules in force at the time when the enquiry was held against the respondent that the procedure prescribed in Rule 16 should have been followed.
15. In Longmal v. Superintendent of Police (supra), stoppage of grade increments with furture effect was accepted as “reduction to a lower stage in the time scale”. It was observed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench:
When the increments of an incumbent are stopped his future progress is brought to a stand still for a particuar length of time. It is the stoppage of this increase which results in a sense in a decrease of his emoluments. In our opinion, therefore, the word “reduce” is wide enough to include the punishment of stoppage of increments. Stoppage of increments with future effect is a permanent reduction in the speed of progress so far as emoluments of an employee are concerned.
16. In the case of Dr. S.M. Gupta v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court, observed:
In other words, with-holding of increments under CL. (ii) of Rule 14 does not include the with-holding of increments with cumulative effect, for, when the increments are stopped for ever the Government servant does not become entitled to it during the service period. This, according to me, means reduction to a lower stage in the time scale mentioned in cl. (iv) of Rule 14 of the Rules.
17. Recently, in the case of Krishna Dutta Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (supra), the learned Judges observed as under:
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 no where 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 whithholding 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 time scale, then also such Government servant is put to a loss of one grade increment for the entire period of his service, 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 major penalty and procedure for enquiry has to be followed as provided under Rule 16 of the Rules. We are, thus, clearly of a the view that in the present case the penalty imposed on the appellant was 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.
This court, in the aforesaid judgments, disagreed with the view taken by the Orissa and Allahabad High Courts. The consistent view, thus, adopted by this Court is that “With-holding of grade increments” amounts to “reduction to lower stage in the time scale.” If the grade increments are stopped with cumulative effect, the net result is that after the expiry of the specified period, the Government servant does not earn increments for those past years. It thus, puts him to a lower stage in the time scale and that amounts to a major penalty under the CCA. Rules and the High Court Rules. We do not feel persuaded that the consistent view taken by this Court requires reconsideration by a larger bench.
18. In the instant case, the penalty of with-holding of two increments without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner without following the procedure mentioned in Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules. It could not be imposed without following the procedure of Rule 16. The impugned order is, therefore, bad and should be quashed.
19. In the result, we allow the writ petition and quash the order Annexure-1 dated January 24, 1985 passed by the Additional Regisrrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur imposing the penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect. It will, however, be open to the respondents to pass a proper order