JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner appellant was visited with the penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 27.2.86 passed in an inquiry No. 1256. The punishment was imposed in inquiry under Rule 17 of the Classification, Control & Appeal Rules, 1958. According to the petitioner, he had filed an appeal against this order through proper channel soon thereafter vide annexure/9 dated 10.6.86. The order of punishment has been communicated to the appellant vide letter No. 1227 dated 27.2.86 by Superintendent of Police, Barmer. According to the petitioner, the appeal was not decided at any time and the punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with the cumulative effect amounts to major punishment resulting in reduction in rank, which could not have been imposed without holding an inquiry in accordance with Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules. 3. In view of the of assertions made by the learned counsel for the appellant in his writ petition, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition without issuing notice to the respondents by directing the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner within 10 days. It was also directed that if the appeal is already decided then the petitioner may be communicated with the endorsement whether he was also informed of the order passed. 4. It may be noticed here that from the notice of holding enquiry and the order of punishment itself it is apparent that the inquiry was conducted under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958, and enquiry was conducted under Rule 16 of C.C.A. Rules. 5. Aggrieved with the order, the appellant preferred this appeal and in response to the notice, the respondents have filed detailed reply to the writ petition. 6. In the first instance, it is stated by way of preliminary objections that since the petitioner was compulsorily retired by the order dated 30.11.2000, without challenging the order of compulsory retirement petitioner cannot get the relief. 7. This contention does not impress. The compulsory retirement under pension rules, which has taken place on 30.11.2000 is a matter independent. of imposing punishment which is alleged to be in violation of the Rules and the protection afforded under Article 311 of the Constitution is entirely independent and different subject matter. 7. This contention does not impress. The compulsory retirement under pension rules, which has taken place on 30.11.2000 is a matter independent. of imposing punishment which is alleged to be in violation of the Rules and the protection afforded under Article 311 of the Constitution is entirely independent and different subject matter. About the compulsory retirement, learned counsel for the appellant informs that he has already preferred an appeal against that order before the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, and is pending before it. 8. Be that as it may, the question of compulsory retirement in November, 2000 does not affect the merit of the imposition of the penalty by the impugned order. 9. About the record relating to the inquiry which resulted in the penalty order dated 27.2.86, the definite stand taken by the respondents is that the record relating to the inquiry held against the appellant since has been destroyed, however, at another stage in reply was submitted that no appeal was preferred by the appellant before the Appellate Authority. The officer who has affirmed the facts stated in the reply is 31 years of age and he has also filed affidavit on the basis of personal knowledge which apparently appears to be incorrect. At best the averemnts made in the reply by the deponent can be founded on the basis of record that may be available with him. When the record of the inquiry has itself been destroyed, it is difficult to accept the plea on the basis of dependent's affidavit that the appeal has not been filed. Moreover, when the copy of the appeal dated 10.6.86 has been filed alongwith the writ petition itself. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent sought to urge that after filing the writ petition, the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the impugned order of punishment which has been decided by D.I.G. as Appellate Authority and the same has been rejected as barred by time. In support of his contention, he has placed before us from his record, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 1.8.2000. This contention is not well founded on facts. In support of his contention, he has placed before us from his record, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 1.8.2000. This contention is not well founded on facts. The order which has been placed before us for our perusal dated 1.8.2000 relates to different inquiry under Rule 17 which culminated the order dated 4.6.86 imposing punishment of censure as stated in the preamble of the order whereas at close of the order it refers to order dated 16.1.86. Apparently, the order placed for our perusal does not relate to the order of punishment under challenge in this case, which is of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect and not of censure subject matter of order dated 1.8.2000. 11. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that appeal filed by him against impugned order was not disposed of and perhaps compliance of the order passed by this court could not be made because of the destroying of the record, if the claim to that fact made by the respondents is to be accepted. 12. On merit, there is no dispute and perhaps there cannot be that the penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty which cannot be imposed without holding an inquiry under Rule 16 of C.C.A. Rules. 13. Reliance in this connection may be made to a Bench decision of this Court in Krishna Dutta Sharma v. State of Raj., RLR 1987(1) 346 wherein the court overruled objection on the basis of latches by holding that withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect, is a major penalty and procedure under Rule 16 must be followed. Such penalty imposed without following the procedure for inquiry under Rule 16 as such is totally without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 14. In view of the above discussion, we allow this appeal as well as writ petition and for the reasons stated above the punishment of withholding of one grade increment with cumulative effect imposed without following the procedure for inquiry under Rule 16 is quashed. There shall be no order as to cost.Appeal and Writ Petition Allowed. *******