JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4th July, 1986 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal'). 2. The petitioner is a confirmed Upper Division Clerk (U.D.C.) in the office of Collector, Tonk and his name appears at S.No. 6-A in the seniority list of U.D.Cs. In relation to an incident of the year 1976-77 disciplinary proceedings under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'CCA Rules') were initiated against the petitioner and in those proceedings, by order dated 7th July, 1880. penalty of withholding of two grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. The matter of promotion from the cadre of U.D.C. to the cadre of Office Assistant was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'DPC') and on the basis of the recommendations of the D.P.C. the order dated 19th September 1984 were passed by the Collector, Tonk whereby the respondent No. 3, namely' Janak Nandan Saxena, was promoted on the post of Office Assistant against the vacancy of the year 1983. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is senior to respondent No. 3. He, therefore, filed an appeal against the order dated 19th Sept. 1984 before the Tribunal. In the said appeal the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled to be promoted in preference to respondent No. 3 on the post of Office Assistant against the vacancy of 1983 and the penalty of withholding of two increments which was imposed by the order dated 7th July, 1980 could not be taken into account so as to deny promotion to the petitioner against the vacancy of 1983. The Tribunal, by its order dated 4th July 1986 has dismissed the said appeal of the petitioner. The Tribunal was of the view that the penalty that was imposed on the petitioner under the order dated 7th July, 1980, related to an incident of 1976-77 and the vacancy for which the promotion of respondent No 3 had been made by the impugned order is of the year 1983 and it was within zone of consideration by the seven years' yardstick. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Notice was issued to the respondents requiring them to show cause as to why the writ petition may not be admitted and finally disposed of. In response to the said notice replies have been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No. 3. 4. We have heard Shri M.R. Calla, the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition and the learned Addl. Government Advocate on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, respondent No. 1. 5. Shri Calla has urged that the penalty of withholding of two grade increments without cumulative effect which was imposed on the petitioner under order dated 7th July, 1980 was in the nature of a minor penalty only and the said penalty could not be taken into account to deny promotion to the petitioner on the post of Office Assistant against the vacancy of 1983. In this connection Shri Calla has urged that under the CCA Rules provision is made for imposition of various penalties and that with-holding of promotion is also one of the penalties which have been prescribed under the said Rules. Shri Calla has contended that the said penalty of with-holding of promotion was not imposed on the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings that were initiated against him and that effect of denial of promotion to the petitioner on the post of Office Assistant under order dated 19th Sept. 1984 is to impose the penalty of with-holding of promotion of the petitioner which is impermissible. In support of his aforesaid submission Shri Calla has placed reliance on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Haryana State Electricity Board, Chandigarh and others (1988)3 S.L.R. 524. 6. In Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Haryana State Electricity Board Chandigarh and others , the appellant before the Supreme Court was appointed as Assistant Engineer and the said appointment was on probation. While he was on probation, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a minor penalty of stoppage of one increment without future effect was imposed on him. 6. In Shiv Kumar Sharma v. Haryana State Electricity Board Chandigarh and others , the appellant before the Supreme Court was appointed as Assistant Engineer and the said appointment was on probation. While he was on probation, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a minor penalty of stoppage of one increment without future effect was imposed on him. In view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings the said appellant was not confirmed although he had completed the probationary period on June 10, 1965 and after completion of the disciplinary proceedings he was confirmed with effect from December 1, 1969 and as a result of the delayed confirmation his seniority was adversely affected. The Supreme Court held that the seniority of the appellant could not be adversely affected on account of the disciplinary proceedings in which the punishment of stoppage of one increment without future effect was imposed oh the appellant. In this context the Supreme Court has observed as under:- "The penalty was imposed on April 15, 1968 and, as a result of which, he was deprived of the monetary benefit of one increment for one year only. The penalty by way of stoppage of one increment for one year was without any future effect. In other words, the appellant's increment for one year was stopped and such stoppage of increment frill have no effect what-so-ever oh his seniority. Accordingly, the Board acted illegally and most arbitrarily in placing the juniors of the appellant above him in the seniority list and/or confirming the appellant on the post with effect from December 1, 1969, that is long after the date of confirmation of the said respondents Nos. 2 to 19. The question of seniority has nothing to do with the penalty that was imposed upon the appellant. It is apparent that for the same act of misconduct the appellant has been punished twice, that is, first by the stoppage of one increment for one year and, second, by placing him below his juniors in the seniority list." The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision is applicable to the present case because here also as a result of the imposition of penalty of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect the petitioner was deprived of the monetary benefit of two increments only. The said penalty of stoppage of two increments was without any future effect. The said penalty of stoppage of two increments was without any future effect. It could not have any effect in the matter of promotion of the petitioner. Denial of promotion to the petitioner on the basis of the said penalty in substance amounts to imposition of penalty of with-holding of promotion on the petitioner and that Would mean that the petitioner has been punished twice, first, by stoppage of increments for two years and the second, by with-holding of promotion on the post of Office Assistant in 1983. Since the order dated 19th September, 1984, whereby respondent No. 3 was promoted on the post of Office Assistant and the petitioner was denied promotion was based only on the fact that by order dated 7th July, 1980 penalty of with-holding of two increments without cumulative effect had been imposed on the petitioner, the said order cannot be upheld and must be set aside. For the same reason the order dated 4th July, 1986 passed by the Tribunal cannot be upheld and must be set aside. The matter of promotion of the petitioner on the post of Office Assistant against the vacancy of the year 1983 will have to be reconsidered by the D.P.C. on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 19th September, 1984 passed by the Collector, Tonk as well as the order dated 4th July, 1986 passed by the Tribunal are set aside and the matter with regard to the promotion of the petitioner on the post of Office Assistant against the vacancy of the year 1983 will be reconsidered by the D.P.C. in the light of the principle seniority-cum-merit taking into account the seniority of the petitioner for the said promotion. In case the petitioner is found fit for promotion and he is promoted on the post of Office Assistant, he will be entitled to all consequential benefits accruing to him as a result of such promotion. The D.P.C. will consider the matter of promotion of the petitioner in accordance with this order within a period of three months. No order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******