Judgment :- Arijit Pasayat, C.J. Only question that is raised in this appeal under S.5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 (in short 'the act) is whether penalty that was imposed on appellant is a minor one as observed by learned Single Judge in O.P. 16398 of 1995 and whether an opportunity of being heard was required to be given even if it is considered that penalty was a minor one. 2. Background facts need to be noted in brief. Appellant, while continuing as Building Inspector, faced departmental proceedings initiated by Trivandrum Corporation in proceedings No. 772/B3/860) dated 16. 2.1987. He was placed under suspension for alleged grave dereliction of duty, warranting disciplinary action. Commissioner of Trivandrum Corporation (Secretary of the Corporation) relieved appellant of his duties. Suspension was made on the ground that unauthorised construction carried out by owner of building TC 28/2160 in the heart of Trivandrum City in gross violation of Kerala Building Rules, 1984 could not have been done without active connivance of staff and Corporation officials failed to detect and prevent it in time. Assistant Town Planner was also placed under suspension along with appellant, pending disciplinary action. Order inter alia pointed out that both assistant town planner and appellant were jointly and severally liable for unauthorised construction. Aggrieved by order of suspension, appellant moved this Court in O.P. 15865 of 1993. Order of suspension and relief order were set aside directing respondents in that Original Petition to reinstate appellant as Building Inspector. Direction was given to complete disciplinary proceedings within a stipulated time. Consequently, appellant was reinstated in service without prejudice to disciplinary action which was conducted against him. Subsequently appellant was posted as Building Inspector of Paravoor Municipality. He was served with memorandum of charges dated 14.11.1994 bearing several allegations against him. Appellant asked for time to submit his written statement. Written statement of defence was submitted explaining circumstances under which alleged deficiency had occurred. Disciplinary proceeding was completed and a punishment of barring increments for three years with cumulative effect was awarded. Review petition was filed by appellant before State Government. Same was rejected and it was challenged in O.P. 16398 of 1995. 3. Written statement of defence was submitted explaining circumstances under which alleged deficiency had occurred. Disciplinary proceeding was completed and a punishment of barring increments for three years with cumulative effect was awarded. Review petition was filed by appellant before State Government. Same was rejected and it was challenged in O.P. 16398 of 1995. 3. Before learned single judge, reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Sahadevan v. State of Kerala (1997 (2) KLT 150) to contend that penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty under R.11 of Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & appeal) Rules, 1960 (in short, 'Rules'). Reliance was also placed on a decision of Apex Court in Union of India v. Mohammed Ramzan Khan (AIR 1991 SC 471). Learned Single Judge observed that a different view had been taken in M Devaki v. State (1994 (2) KLJ 808) wherein it was held that imposition of penalty of withholding of increments with cumulative effect did not fail within the category of major penalty. Learned Judge observed that in view of apparent conflict of views, reference to a Division Bench may have been appropriate. But i n State of Kerala v. Ranganathan (1997 (2) KLT 121), a Division Bench, while considering a similar provision contained in Police Departmental Inquiries, Punishment and Appeal Rules observed that it was not necessary to conduct a full fledged enquiry before awarding penalty of barring of increments with or without cumulative effect. Accordingly, appellant's stand was not accepted. 4. Appellant's stand in support of appeal is that before imposition of punishment, no opportunity was granted and since punishment, in question was a major one, a full fledged enquiry was required to be conducted. Reliance is placed on the decision of Apex Court in Mohammed Ramzan Khan's case (supra) to contend that penalty imposed is a major one. Learned counsel for State, on the other hand, supported the order stating that the rules under consideration are different from the rules which were under consideration of Apex Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab (1991 Supp. (1) SCC 504). Therefore, that decision has no application to the facts of case. 5. R.11 of the Rules deals with the nature of penalty in Part V under the heading "Discipline". Same reads as follows: "11. (1) SCC 504). Therefore, that decision has no application to the facts of case. 5. R.11 of the Rules deals with the nature of penalty in Part V under the heading "Discipline". Same reads as follows: "11. The nature of penalties:- (1) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely (1) Censure; (ii) fine (in the case of persons on whom such penalty may be imposed under these rules) (iii) Withholding of increments or promotion; Note:- (1) Withholding of increments may either be permanent or temporary for a specified period. But withholding of promotion shall be only temporary for a specified period. (2) Temporary period of withholding of increments shall not be less than three months and the temporary period of withholding of promotion shall not be less than six months and both shall not be for more than three years. If the period is not specified in the order it will be deemed to be 3 months in the case of temporary withholding of increments and 6 months in the case of temporary withholding of promotion. Temporary withholding of increments shall mean withholding of increments without cumulative effect, ie, it shall not have the effect of postponing future increments. (3) In case the order of withholding of increments cannot be given effect to, the monetary value equivalent to the amount of increments ordered to be withheld will be recovered from the pay of the officer. If the officer retires from service before the recovery could be effected the amount will be recovered from his pension or death-cum-retirement gratuity. Explanation:- In case of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect the monetary value equivalent to three times the amount of increments ordered to be withheld may be recovered. (4) Withholding of promotion shall not entail loss of seniority in that grade. (5) an officer whose promotion is withheld, shall, if and when promoted to a higher grade or higher time scale subsequently, on promotion take his place at the bottom of the higher grade or higher time scale. (iv) (a) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to a State Government or the Central Government or to a local authority by negligence or breach of orders. R.15 deals with procedure for imposing major penalties. R.16 deals with procedure for imposing minor penal ties. (iv) (a) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to a State Government or the Central Government or to a local authority by negligence or breach of orders. R.15 deals with procedure for imposing major penalties. R.16 deals with procedure for imposing minor penal ties. Heading of the rule is "procedure for imposing minor penalties". Items (i) to (iv) of R.11(1) are governed by the requirements under R.16. Withholding of increments is covered by item (iii) of R.11(1). Requirement to be complied with has been done. Therefore, there is no procedural infirmity. Apex Court in Kulwant Singh Gill's case (supra) was dealing with R.5(iv) of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & appeal) Rules which is contextually different so far as minor penalties are concerned. That being position, there was no requirement to conduct a full fledged enquiry which is required to be done for major penalties. 6. It is submitted that as a consequential corollary, in view of Apex Court's decision, the punishment must be held to be a major one. A decision is a determination arrived at after consideration of facts and in the legal context, law related to the facts of a particular case. It is an authority for what is decided and not what consequentially incidentally flows from the conclusion. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, "it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. Observations of the judges are not to be read as Euclid's theorems, not as provisions of the statute (see: Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of A.P., AIR 1983 SC 1246 and MA. AmarNath Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (AIR 1985 SC 218). There is always peril in treating the words of a speech of judgment, as though they are words in a legislative enactment and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case (see: Harrington v. British Railways Board, (1972) 2 WLR 587). There is always peril in treating the words of a speech of judgment, as though they are words in a legislative enactment and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case (see: Harrington v. British Railways Board, (1972) 2 WLR 587). It is needless to repeat the oft quoted truism of Lord Halsbury that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides and not for what may seem to follow logically from it. 7. It is to be noted that under R.23 which deals with "appeals", an exclusion is made in respect of orders passed by Government and it is clearly pro vided that no appeal shall lie against an order passed by Government. As in respect of a minor penalty, no full fledged enquiry is contemplated or provided for, petitioner- Appellant is not entitled for any relief. Writ Appeal is without any merit and is dismissed.