JUDGMENT S. Sankarasubban 1. Petitioner is the Village Officer. He is aggrieved by the penalty imposed on him by Ext. P6 order issued by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram in a disciplinary proceeding. Under Ext. P6. District Collector awarded a penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. This order was upheld by the Board of Revenue in appeal under Ext. P8 and by the Government in review under Ext. P10. 2. The allegation against the petitioner was that while he was working as Village Officer, Pazhayakunnummel Village, he instigated people of Pappala to stop the lorry No. KLI 2836 which was sent to Cherunarakamode for the supply of drinking water . to the people of the locality and that he had stopped the lorries carrying water to several places on several occasions and threatened the driver of the lorry to supply water at the points shown by him. Ext. P2 is the memo of charges. Petitioner gave Ext. P5 reply wherein hedenied the entire thing and contended that me entire proceedings were taken against him because the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) was nursing vengeance against him. 3. As already stated, a penalty of barring of two increments with cumulative effect was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Radhakrishnan contended that the entire disciplinary proceeding was ab initio void. According to him, the memo of charges is vague and is not issued in accordance with R.16(1)(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). He further submitted that there was no enquiry with regard to the allegations in the memo of charges. Barring of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and the major penalty cannot be imposed without following procedure under R.15 of the Rules. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State contended that the entire disciplinary proceedings were done according to law. According to him, only a minor penalty has been imposed and hence, there was no necessary for an elaborate enquiry. 4. Regarding the first contention that the memo of charges is not in accordance with R.16(1)(a) of the Rules and that it is vague, I cannot accept the same. Even if there is any vagueness, petitioner has understood the charges levelled against him and has given a reply to the charges. 4. Regarding the first contention that the memo of charges is not in accordance with R.16(1)(a) of the Rules and that it is vague, I cannot accept the same. Even if there is any vagueness, petitioner has understood the charges levelled against him and has given a reply to the charges. The mere fact that there was some irregularity in the issuance of the notice does not affect the proceedings. But it is not correct to say that the penalty imposed is not a major one. Penalty imposed is stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. R.11 of the Rules deals with the penalties which can be imposed. R.11(iii)of the Rules is withholding of increments or promotion. R.11(v) of the Rules is reduction to a lower rank in the seniority list or to a lower grade or post or timescale. The question is whether withholding of increments for two years with cumulative effect amounts to a major penalty. 5. A similar question arose before the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 504. There their Lordships were dealing with Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. R.5 (iv) deals with withholding of increments of pay and R.5(v) is reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period. There also, the penalty imposed was withholding of two increments for two years with cumulative effect. The Supreme Court held thus: "Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it certainly comes within the meaning of R.5(iv) of the Rules. But when penalty was imposed withholding two increments ie., for two years with cumulative effect, it would indisputably mean that the two increments earned by the employee was cut off as a measure of penalty for ever in his upward march of earning higher scale of pay. In other words, the clock is put back to a lower stage in the time scale of pay and on expiry of two years the clock starts working from that stage afresh. In other words, the clock is put back to a lower stage in the time scale of pay and on expiry of two years the clock starts working from that stage afresh. The insidious effect of the impugned order, by necessary implication, is that the appellant employee is reduced in his time scale by two places and it is in perpetuity during the rest of the tenure of his service with a direction that two years' increments would not be counted in his time scale of pay as a measure of penalty. The words are the skin to the language which if peeled off its true colour or its resultant effects would become apparent". The Court further held that it was a major penalty. The same is the situation in the present Case also. A major penalty is imposed without following the procedure for imposing such penalty. Hence, I quash Exts. P6, P8 and P 10 orders. Original Petition is allowed.