JUDGMENT 1. This special appeal under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance 1948, is directed against the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge dated November 24, 1973. 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 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. 3. 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. 4. Learned Single Judge did not find favour with the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner on merit and further that no explanation of the delay had been given for the period from December 9, 1969 to May 5, 1972. 5. Aggrieved against the judgment of learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed by the petitioner. 6. An important and substantial question of law has been raised in this appeal. 5. Aggrieved against the judgment of learned Single Judge, this appeal has been filed by the petitioner. 6. An important and substantial question of law has been raised in this appeal. Rule 14 of the Rules provides for the following penalties:- (i) Censure; (ii) withholding 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 a disqualification for future employment. Rule 16 provides for the procedure for imposing major penalties and Rule 17 provides for the procedure for imposing minor penalties. Rule 16 (1) lays down that no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clause (iv) to (vii) of Rule 14 shall be passed except after an enquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner. hereinafter provided. Thus, the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of Rule 14 have been considered as major penalties and an inquiry with regard to such penalties is required to be held in the manner provided under various sub-rules of Rule 16, Rule 17 provides for procedure for imposing minor penalties and such minor penalties are those, which have been specified in clause (i) to (iii) of Rule 14. 7. In the present case, the petitioner appellant has been imposed a penalty of withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect. There is no clear mention of such penalty in clauses (i) to (iii) of Rule 14. Clause (ii) of Rule 14 only makes a mention of with-holding of increment simpliciter but does not mention withholding of increment with cumulative effect. Clause (iv) of Rule 14 provides for a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale. There is no clear mention of such penalty in clauses (i) to (iii) of Rule 14. Clause (ii) of Rule 14 only makes a mention of with-holding of increment simpliciter but does not mention withholding of increment with cumulative effect. Clause (iv) of Rule 14 provides for a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale. The contention of the appellant is that the penalty of withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and is equivalent to putting the appellant to a lower stage in the time scale and as such the procedure as contemplated in Rule 16 for major penalties should have been followed. No procedure for imposing major penalties under Rule 16 has been followed in the present case, as such the order imposing penalty is totally illegal and without jurisdiction. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on (1) C. Veer Chowdaish V. State of Mysore & Anr. : 1973 (1) SLR 241 . (2) Alakendu Sarkar V. State of West Bengal and Ors. : 1981 (2) SLR 33 , (3) Punjab State and others V. Ram Lubhaya : 1983 (2) SLR 410 , (4) Langmal and others V. Superintendent of Police Ajmer and others : AIR 1967 Rajasthan 214 . It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that no case at all is established on merits for imposing any penalty on the appellant. In this regard it is submitted that the charge levelled against the appellant was that while he was working as Vikas Adhikari, Sanchore Panchayat Samiti, he persuaded the Finance Taxation Standing, Committee of the Samiti to pass a resolution on June 16, 1965 for sanctioning the purchase of 600 copies of his book "Adarsh Panchayat ...Ward Panchas etc." It was also alleged that 600 copies of the above book were purchased for Rs. 2,640/- for distribution free of charge and that the appellant has thereby taken undue advantage of his office. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there was no provision under any law to take permission for writing a book and in the present case there was no question of taking any undue advantage by the appellant. 2,640/- for distribution free of charge and that the appellant has thereby taken undue advantage of his office. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that there was no provision under any law to take permission for writing a book and in the present case there was no question of taking any undue advantage by the appellant. The appellant at the relevant time was merely Vikas Adhikari in the Panchayat Samiti while the Finance and Taxation Standing Committee of the Samiti has passed a resolution for purchasing of 600 copies of his book. It is submitted that such committee was a statutaty committee and there is no charge against the appellant that he in any manner pressurised or put any undue influence over the members of such committee. It is submitted that along with the writ petition the petitioner has annexed Appendix 'B' showing list of officers, who has written books without permission of the Government, bit still cash awards were given to them for writing such books. List has also bean given of officers, who had written books without permission and were not punished. It is further submitted that on January 4, 1966. he had sent a letter under certificate of pasting to Special Secretary (Appointments) Jaipur. Development Commissioner, Rajasthan. Jaipur, Collector, Nagaur (for onward transmission to the Government) and Secretary, General Administration Department, Jaipur. In the above letter the petitioner appellant had mentioned that he was an author of books since his student career and he wanted to know of any rules and regulations requiring or making it necessary to get prior approval for writing books on various subjects by a Government Servant from the Government. He had mentioned that in the Government Servants Conduct Rules, there was no provision of prior sanction. Though, there were rules for Cash Prize to Government Servants, 1960 for writing books etc. but there was no specific provision for obtaining prior approval for writing books. It was thus, requested that the petitioner may be made aware of any such Rules for his future guidance. It is important to mention that no reply was sent to the aforesaid letter nor the learned Additional Government Advocate was able to show any rule to us providing for prior approval for writing a book by a Government Servant. It was thus, requested that the petitioner may be made aware of any such Rules for his future guidance. It is important to mention that no reply was sent to the aforesaid letter nor the learned Additional Government Advocate was able to show any rule to us providing for prior approval for writing a book by a Government Servant. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant had been on privilege leave from March 1, 1965 to March 19, 1965 for managing certain domestic affairs and during that period he wrote the book which was published in the year 1965 by M/s Purnima Prakashan, Jaipur. When the book was ready for publication the petitioner wanted to know whether any permission was necessary for writing and publication of such hook, in the mean time he came to know from Shri S.N. Vyas, Vikas Adhikari, Phalaudi that there was no necessity of obtaining permission for such writing and Publication and he had also been informed by Shri Ram Singh, the then Joint Development Commissioner of Rajasthan vide his letter No. F. 2 (136)PD/Adm./65, dated March 4, 1965, that no such sanction was necessary. The contents of above letter are reproduced:- HINDI MATTER 373569 9. It was further submitted that the petitioner appellant had no money to spend for the publication of the aforesaid book and as such the proprietor of M/s Purnima Prakashan, Jaipur asked the petitioner to handover the copy-right of this book. Consequently, an agreement was executed and the copyright were sold for Rs. 500/- which were to be paid to the petitioner in two instalments of Rs. 250/- each. The appellant in these circumstances got no undue advantage even if 600 copies were purchased by the Panchayat Samiti. It was also argued that after publication of the book in question the petitioner had received letters of appriciation from Shri Vishnu Dutt Sharma, the then Special Secretary Appointments Department vide letter dated January 4, 1966 and from Shri Bhagwat Singh Mchta Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan vide D.O. dated June 13, 1966. In view of the above circumstances it was contended that no charge of any kind is held established against the appellant and the order imposing penalty ought to have been quashed. 10. In view of the above circumstances it was contended that no charge of any kind is held established against the appellant and the order imposing penalty ought to have been quashed. 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 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 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 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. 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 Division 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 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 with holding 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 Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. In the above Punjab case with- holding 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 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. 15. In view of the fact that the order imposing penalty in this case was totally wrong & illegal as 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. 16. 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. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of learned Single Judge dated November 29, 1973, and quash the order imposing penalty of withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect passed against the appellant. The appellant shall be entitled to all the arrears of pay and allowances etc. as if no such punishment was imposed on him. In the facts and circumstances of this case the parties shall bear their own costs.Special appeal allowed. *******