JUDGMENT : R. K. Patra, J. - Is stoppage of increments with cumulative effect a major penalty ? This is the prime question that arises for consideration in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner who seeks quashing of the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect inflicted on him by the Board of Directors, Orissa State Financial Corporation (vide Annexure-6). 2. Facts necessary for the purpose of the case may be briefly noted. A set of charges as per Annexure-1 was served on the petitioner calling upon him to explain why penalty as envisaged under Regulation 44 of the Orissa State Financial Corporation Staff Regulations. 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Staff Regulations) should not be imposed on him. The gravamen of the charges is that during his incumbency as Branch Manager, Orissa State Financial Corporation, Bolangir Branch, he committed irregularities by sanctioning and disbursing term loan in favour of one Md. Aziz and in connection with inspection of Messrs Shreema Press. Ha submitted his reply denying the charges as per Annexure-4. The charges were enquired into and the Enquiry Officer on consideration of the materials available on record submitted his report dated 24-12-1991 exonerating the petitioner from all the charges levelled against him. The Board of Directors of the Orissa State Financial ? Corporation (in brief 'Corporation") as the disciplinary authority considered the enquiry report and the evidence recorded during enquiry and came to hold that the charges were established and . accordingly imposed the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect as communicated by the impugned order at Annexure-6. The petitioner filed an application for reconsideration of the said penalty which was rejected as communicated in the letter dated 9-2-1992 at Annexure-C. 3. Shri B.B. Ratho, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised the following three contentions in support of the writ application : (1) in the case at hand the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of all the charges and when the disciplinary authority inflicted the impugned penalty by disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner should have bean given an opportunity of being heard. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the Judgment of the Andhra Pradash High Court in T, Basudev Rao v. General Manager, Punjab National Bank 1990 (5) SLR 447 wherein in has been held that although the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is not binding on the disciplinary authority which can record its own finding disagreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer but before exercising that right, the doctrine of fair play requires that an opportunity of hearing should be given to the delinquent: (2) The impugned order being a bald one without any reason, it is vulnerable; and (3) Stoppage of increments with cumulative effect being a major penalty, the disciplinary authority ought to have followed the procedure bid down by the rules for imposing major penalty. Shri Rao, learned counsel for the Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that the report of the Enquiry Officer is not binding on the disciplinary authority which can differ from the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and since the entire proceeding is one and the same, it was not necessary for the disciplinary authority to give further opportunity of hearing before i -posing the impugned penalty. In this connection, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India, Bhopal v. S.S. Koshal AIR 1994 SCW 2901 . In that case the Supreme Court observed that the Enquiry officer's report is not binding upon the disciplinary authority and it is open to it to come to its own conclusion on the charges. It is not in the nature of an appeal from the Enquiry Officer to the disciplinary authority. It is one arid the same proceeding. It is open to the disciplinary authority to hold the enquiry itself. It is equally open to it to appoint an Enquiry Officer to hold the enquiry and place the entire record before it with or without his finding. But in either case, the final decision is to he taken by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the materials adduced. In the circumstances, there is no need to give a fresh opportunity to the delinquent either under the service rules or under the principles of natural justice. But in either case, the final decision is to he taken by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the materials adduced. In the circumstances, there is no need to give a fresh opportunity to the delinquent either under the service rules or under the principles of natural justice. Shri Rao also contended that the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is a minor one and as such no opportunity of further hearing was necessary to be afforded to the petitioner. 4. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, the first and foremost question that arises for consideration is whether stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty. Regulation 44 of the Staff Regulations framed by the Corporation provides that without prejudice to the provisions of other Regulations, an officer employee who commits a Breach of regulations of the Corporation shall be eligible to disciplinary proceeding and penalty as are provided in the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (in brief referred to as the Orissa CCA Rules) and the procedure for disciplinary proceedings as contained In those rules shall be followed by the Corporation. In view of the fact that Orissa CCA Rules are applicable to the disciplinary proceeding in respect of officer employee of the Corporation, we may therefore, look at Rule 13 thereof which deals with the nature of penalties which can be imposed on a delinquent employee. Withholding of increments is one of the minor penalties provided in Rule 13. The said rule does not provide imposition of penalty by way of withholding of increments with cumulative effect. At this stage we may examine Rule 13 (vi) which is a penalty by way of reduction to lower service grade or post or to a lower time-scale or to a Lower stage in a time-scale which can be imposed on a delinquent employee for good and sufficient reason. The said penalty is however a major one. The question whether withholding of increments with cumulative effect is a major or minor penalty came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab,91 Suppl. {1) SCC 504. The said penalty is however a major one. The question whether withholding of increments with cumulative effect is a major or minor penalty came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab,91 Suppl. {1) SCC 504. In that case the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty or stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect on the delinquent officer under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Holes, 1970, Under the Punjab Rules withholding of increment simplicter is a minor penalty. There is also no provision of withholding of increments with cumulative effect under those Rules. Rule 5 (v) of the Punjab Rules prescribes a penalty In the nature of reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specific period with further direction as to whether or not the Government employed shall earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whetner on the expiry of the period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future incremants of his pay. The said penalty is a major one under the Punjab Rules. In paragraph 4 of the judgment, the Supreme Court after examining the rules observed as follows: "......Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it certainly comes within the meaning of Rule 5 (iv) of the Rules. But when penalty was imposed withholding two increments, i. e. 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 dock 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 insidicus effect of the impugned order, by necessary implication, is that the appellan 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 direction that two years increments would not be counter 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 words are the skin to the language which if peeled off its true colour or its resultant effects would become apparent. When we broach the problem from this perspective the effect is a envisaged under Rule 5 (v) of the Rules. It is undoubted the the Division Bench in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, P. C Jain, ACJ speaking for the Division, Bench while considering the similar question, in paragraph 8 held that the stoppage c increments with cumulative effect, by no stretch of imagination falls within Clause (v) of Rule 5 or in Rule 4 12 of Punja Civil Services Rules. It was further held that under Clause v of Rule 5 there has to be a reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by the competent authority as a measure of penalty and the period for which such a reduction is to b effective has to be stated and on restoration it has further to be specified whether the reduction shall operate to postpone the future increments of his pay. In such case withholding of the increments without cumultive effect does not at all arise. In ca3e where the increments are withheld with or without cumulative effect the Government employee is never reduced to a lower stage of time scale of pay. Accordingly it was held that Clause (iv) of Rule 5 is applicable to the facts of that case. With respect we are unable to agree with the High Court. If the literal interpretation is adopted the learned Judges may be right to arrive at that conclusion. But if the effect is kept at the back of the mind, it would always be so, the result will be the conclusion as we have arrived at. if the reasoning of the High Court is given acceptance, it would empower the disciplinary authority to impose, under the garb of stoppage of increments, {s/c stoppage) of earning future increments in the time scale of pay even permanently without expressly stating so. This preposterous consequence cannot be permitted to be permeated. Rule 5 (iv) does not empower the disciplinary authority to impose penalty of, withholding Increments of pay with cumulative effect except after holding enquiry and following the prescribed procedure. 1 hen the order would be without jurisdiction or authority of law, and it would be per se void. This preposterous consequence cannot be permitted to be permeated. Rule 5 (iv) does not empower the disciplinary authority to impose penalty of, withholding Increments of pay with cumulative effect except after holding enquiry and following the prescribed procedure. 1 hen the order would be without jurisdiction or authority of law, and it would be per se void. Considering from this angle we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order would coma within the meaning of Rule 5 (v) of the Rules, it is a major penalty and imposition of the impugned penalty without enquiry is per se illegal." The ratio laid down by Kulwant Singh Gill {supra) was followed by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab 19S5 Supp. (4) SCC 433. 5. We have perused carefully Rule 5 (v) of the Punjab Rules and Rule 13 (vi) of the Orissa CCA Rules. Both the rules are identically worded and pari materia to each other. On the basis of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the question, we hold that penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect imposed under the Orissa CCA Rules is a major penalty. May it be stated that a Bench of this Court in Bijay Krishna Nandi v. State of Orissa 1973 2 CWR 883 has held that stoppage of two increments with cumulati e effect under the Orissa CCA Rules is not a major penalty. Same opinion was expressed by another Bench of this Court in Gobinda Chandra Rout v. State of Orissa ILR 1977 (2) Cutt 610. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the question to the contrary, the ratio laid down by this Court in Bijay Krishna Nandi and Gobinda Chandra Rourt (supra) that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a minor penalty has lost its precedential vaiue. For the aforesaid reason, we have no hesitation to reject the contention of the Corporation that the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect inflicted on the petitioner is a minor penalty. Under the Orissa CCA Rules for imposing major penalty different procedure (vide Rule 15) has been prescribed which has not admittedly been followed in the petitioner's case and as such, the impugned order at Annexure-6 cannot be sustained in law which is hereby quashed. Under the Orissa CCA Rules for imposing major penalty different procedure (vide Rule 15) has been prescribed which has not admittedly been followed in the petitioner's case and as such, the impugned order at Annexure-6 cannot be sustained in law which is hereby quashed. In view of our answer above in respect of contention No. 3 raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is not further necessary to examine contention Nos. 1 and 2. 6. In the result, the writ application is allowed. There would be no order as to costs. R.K. Dash, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Allowed