Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Electrical Superintending Engineer, Tansmission and Operation (O & M) at Boards Headquarters, Patna. He was served a resolution, Annexure 7, to show cause within a forthight from the date of issue of resolution as to why proposed punishment be not inflicted upon him. He filed his show cause, Annexure 8. On consideration of his show cause, the authority found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and awarded two punishments i.e. (i) Warning with an entry in his ACR of 1997-98 (ii) Stopping three annual increments with cumulative effect vide order contained in letter dated 13.1.2000, Annexure 10. The petitioner has challenged the order, Annexure 10, in the writ petition. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that inflicting punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect without holding regular departmental inquiry is bad in law, whereas learned Counsel for the respondents contended that there is no need of regular departmental enquiry for such punishment and there is nothing wrong in passing the order of punishment withholding three increments with cumulative effect. 3. To resolve the controversy, as indicated above, it is necessary to consider the relevant rules. The punishments which can be imposed on a civil servant are mentioned in Rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules, which are as follows: The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon members of the services comprised in any of the classes (1) to (5) specified in Rule 14, namely;- (i) Censure (ii) Withholding of increments of promotion including stoppage at a efficiency bar. (iii) Reduction to a lower post or time-scale or to a lower stage in a time scale, (iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders, (iv-a) Compulsory retirement, (v) Suspension (vi) Removal from the civil service of the Crown, which does not disqualify from future employment, (vii) Dismissal from the civil services of the Crown, which ordinarily disqualifies from future employment. 4. Rule 55 deals with general procedure to be followed for imposing punishment on civil servants whereas Rule 55-A deals with summary procedure for imposing certain minor punishment on the civil servants. 4. Rule 55 deals with general procedure to be followed for imposing punishment on civil servants whereas Rule 55-A deals with summary procedure for imposing certain minor punishment on the civil servants. Rule; 55-A of the Rules is as follows: 55-A. Without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 55, no order imposing the penalty specified in Clauses (i), (ii) or (iv) of Rule 49 (other than an order based on facts which led to his conviction in a Criminal Court or by a Court-Martial, or an order superseding him for promotion to a higher post on the ground of his unfitness for that post) on any Government servant to whom these rules are applicable shall be passed unless he has been given an adequate opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make and such representation, if any, has been taken into consideration before the order is passed: Provided that the requirements of this rule may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, be waived where there is difficulty in observing them and where they can be waived without injustice to the officer concerned. 5. It is, thus, obvious from Rule 55-A of the Rules that punishment specified in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 49 can be inflicted upon giving an adequate opportunity of making a representation/explanation before passing the order of punishment and there is no need of regular departmental inquiry for inflicting such punishment. Clause (ii) of Rule 49 of the Rules deals with withholding of increments of promotion including stoppage at an efficiency bar. The aforesaid rule does not say with regard to withholding of increments with cumulative effect and Clause (iii) of Rule 49 of the Rules which says reduction to a lower post or time scale, or to a lower stage in a time scale. Withholding of three increments with cumulative effect would mean that three increments earned by the employee were cut off forever for earning higher scale of pay. The effect of such punishment would be that the employee would be reduced in his time scale by three places and it would be in perpetuity during the rest of his tenure of service with direction that three increments would not be counted in his time scale of pay as measure of punishment. The effect of such punishment would be that the employee would be reduced in his time scale by three places and it would be in perpetuity during the rest of his tenure of service with direction that three increments would not be counted in his time scale of pay as measure of punishment. Therefore, the penalty of withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect would come under Clause (iii) of Rule 49 of the Rules and not under Clause (ii) of Rule 49 of the Rules and such, such punishment cannot be imposed upon the petitioner without holding a departmental inquiry as required in Rule 55 of the Rules. The Apex Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill V/s. State of Punjab 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 504, has held "withholding of increments of pay simpliciter undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5(iv). But Sub-rule (v) postulates reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the Government employee shall earn increments of pay during the period of such reductions and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. It is an independent head of penalty and it could be imposed as punishment in an appropriate case. It is one of the major penalties. The impugned order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect whether would fall within the meaning of Rule 5(v)? If it so falls Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules require conducting of regular inquiry. The contention of Shri Nayar, learned Counsel for the State is that withholding two increments with cumulative effect is only a minor penalty as it does not amount to reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay. We find it extremely difficult to countenance the contention. 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. 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 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 insiduous effect of the impugned order, by necessary implication is that the appellant employee is retained in the time scale by two places and it is inperpetuity 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 akin to the language which if peeled off its true color or its resultant effects would become apparent. When we broach the problem from this perspective the effect is as envisaged under Rule 5(v) of the Rules. It is undoubted that the Division Bench in the Sarwan Singh V/s. State of Punjab, P.C. Jain, A.C.J. speaking for the Division Bench, while considering similar question, in paragraph 8 held that the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, by no stretch of imagination falls Clause (v) of Rule 5 or in the Rules 4.12 of Punjab 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 be 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 cases withholding of the increments without cumulative effectors not at all arise. In case 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. 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, (sic. 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 inquiry and following the prescribed procedure. Then, the order would be without jurisdiction or authority of law, and it would be perse void. Considering from this angle, we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order would come within the meaning of Rule 5(v) of the Rules; it is a major penalty and imposition of the impugned penalty without inquiry is perse illegal. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raghu Nath Rai and other analogous cases V/s. State of Bihar 1997 (2) PUR 421, has held that punishment of withholding annual increments with cumulative effect is covered by Clause (iii) of Rule 49 and not by Clause (ii) of Rule 49 and as such no such punishment can be legally imposed without taking recourse to regular inquiry under Rule 55. 7. However, learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon a decision in the case of M. Devak V/s. State of Kerala and Anr. 1995 (4) SLR 392, wherein the apex Court while considering the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 has held that for withholding increment with cumulative effect, there is no need of regular inquiry. However, it is evident from the said judgment that in Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, a note was added which states thus: "Withholding of increments may either be permanent or temporary for a specified period. However, it is evident from the said judgment that in Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960, a note was added which states thus: "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." The apex Court considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter has held that there is no need of regular inquiry for passing the order of punishment withholding increment with cumulative effect. The ratio decided is made applicable when there is similar provision. In the Bihar Rules, there is no such provision. Therefore, in my view, the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, Clause (ii) of Rule 49 of the Rules no doubt says for withholding of increment but it does not mention withholding of increment with cumulative effect. The effect of punishment of withholding increment with cumulative effect would be that the employee would be reduced in his time scale by three places and it would perpetuate during the rest of the tenure of his service and as such it would come under Clause (iii) of Rule 49 of the Rules which says reduction to a lower post or time scale or to lower stage in time scale. In the case of Kulwant Singh Gill (supra), the Rules of Punjab Civil Services were considered by the apex Court were similar to the Bihar Rules and as such the ratio decided in the said case is applicable to the case in hand. 8 Thus, on consideration as discussed above, the punishment withholding of three increments with cumulative effect inflicted upon the petitioner would come under Clause (iii) of Rule 49 of the Rules and as such, such punishment cannot be inflicted without holding a regular departmental inquiry and accordingly, the order of punishment, as indicated above cannot be held to be legal. 9. Accordingly, the punishment withholding three increments with cumulative effect inflicted upon the petitioner is hereby set aside and the writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above but without cost.