Honble SHETHNA, J. – The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned order of penalty of withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect passed by the respondent No. 2,the General Manager (Traffic) on March 6, 1984, Annex.P.4. The said order was challenged in appeal by the petitioner before the appellate authority on April 4, 1984, Annex.P.5., but some how on the other the same remained undecided for number of years. Therefore,the petitioner has filed this petition before this court and challenged the penalty order. (2). Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the enquiry office has fully exonerated from the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority found the charges of slowness or inefficient against the petitioner to be proved and for that penalty by way of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect is imposed. The submits that charge was altogether different in the regular enquiry. The enquiry officer as per his report found the charges not proved against the petitioner. The report is not produced on record,however learned counsel Shri Ravi Bhansali has shown report to me. After going through the report of enquiry officer and the impugned order of punishment I am fully satisfied that the disciplinary authority has committed grave error in passing the impugned order of penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect. Slowness in not a misconduct. He can be said to be inefficient and for that adverse remarks can be passed in his service book for that an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority was also wrong in holding that other officers were vigilant and they registered and detect cases of corporation by their subordinate officers but the petitioner fails to do so. This reasoning is wholly unreasonable. (3). In ordinary circumstances, I would not have interfered with the impugned order when the appeal was filed and pending before the appellate authority, but in this case the appeal was filed in 1984 and the appellate authority slept over the matter for years together and not decided the same. Therefore the petitioner was compelled to file this petition in 1987 and now because this petition is pending the appeal is not decided. Therefore the petitioner was compelled to file this petition in 1987 and now because this petition is pending the appeal is not decided. As stated earlier the impugned order of punishment is found wholly unsustainable and against the principle of natural justice, therefore, though the appeal is pending that on stay petition this Court staryed the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. It may be stated the operation of the impugned order Annex. P.4 till the final disposal of this writ petition on 18.9.88. By virtue of that order the order of punishment is stayed. In view of the above discussion this petition is allowed. The impugned order Annex.P.4 dated March 6, 1984 is set aside and it is declared that the impugned order of penalty was never passed against the petitioner and petitioner is entitled for all the benefits of service including back wages, if any. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with cost.