JUDGMENT The petitioner while working as Cooperative Inspector was visited with the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Assailing the aforesaid punishment, an appeal was preferred but it did not meet with success. Questioning the validity of the imposition of punishment Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised a singular contention, namely, that the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect being a major penalty could not have been imposed without holding a departmental enquiry. Mr. R.S. Jha, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly stated that no enquiry was held for imposition of major penalty but an enquiry was held for imposition of minor penalty. It is well settled in law that for the proceeding initiated for minor penalty, major penalty cannot be imposed. In view of the aforesaid, the order of penalty passed against the petitioner stands quashed. At this juncture I may hasten to add that the petitioner has already been superannuated on 30.6.2003 and the punishment was passed against him in the year 1989. Taking into consideration the long lapse of time and the fact that the petitioner has been superannuated, the authorities would be well advised not to proceed against the petitioner and settle his retiral dues. This Court hopes and trusts that they will be well guided in this matter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.