R. B. MISRA, J. Heard Sri Ashok Khare learned senior Advocate with Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta on behalf of learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. In this writ petition the order dated 5-10-96 has been challenged whereby for involvement of the petitioner in alleged irregularities in working he was awarded adverse entry with remarks and stopping of three increments cumulatively with further indication that in the interest of public, the petitioner shall not be kept on a post of responsibility. 3. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 as applicable in Uttar Pradesh in para 55 (1) provides as below: "55. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of Public Servant Inquires Act, 1850 an order (other than an order based on facts which had led to his conviction in a criminal Court or by a Court material) of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank (which includes reduction to a lower post or time scale, or to a lower stage in a time scale but excludes the reversion to a lower post of a person who is officiating in a higher post) shall be passed on a person who is a member of a Civil Service, or holds a civil post under the State unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded on adequate opportunity of defending himself. The ground on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the person charged and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged Government servant of the facts and circumstances against him. He shall be required, within a reasonable time to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desired, or if the authority concerned so directs, an oral inquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegation as are not admitted. At that inquiry such oral evidence will be heard as the inquiring officer considers necessary. If he so desired, or if the authority concerned so directs, an oral inquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegation as are not admitted. At that inquiry such oral evidence will be heard as the inquiring officer considers necessary. The person charged shall be entitled to cross- examine the witnesses to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may with, provided that the officer conducting the inquiry may for sufficient reason to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the findings and the ground thereof. The officer conducting the inquiry may also separately from these proceedings make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the charged Government servant. " 4. Para 55-B of Rules, 1930 above provides as below: "55-B (a) Whenever the punishing authority is satisfied that good and sufficient reasons exist for adopting such a course it may impose the penalty of : (i) censure, or (ii) stoppage at an efficiency - bar : Provided that it shall not be necessary to frame formal charges against the Government servant concerned or to call for his explanation. (b) In all cases where a punishing authority imposes the penalty of - (i) withholding increments in the time-scale at stages where there is no efficiency bar, or (ii) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to State Government by negligence or breach of orders. For proceeding embodying a statement of the offence or fault, the explanation of the person concerned and the reasons for the punishment shall be recorded: Provided that it shall not be necessary to record such proceedings in cases where a Government servants increment in the time scale of his pay, at any stage other than an efficiency bar, is stopped due to this integrity remaining uncertified. 5. It has been argued by Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the order dated 13th September, 1990 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2960 of 1987, Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1990 Indian Factories and Labour Reports Vol. 61, where the Rule 5 (v) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 was dealt with. 61, where the Rule 5 (v) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 was dealt with. Rule 5 (v) of above Rules, 1970 reads as below: "5. Penalties.-The following penalties may for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government employee, namely: Minor Penalties (i) Censure ; (ii) Withholding of his promotions ; (iii) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders : (iv) Withholding of increments of pay ; Major Penalties (v) 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 will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing g the future increments of his pay ; (vi) reduction to a lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the Government employee to the time-scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service from which the Government employee was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration that grade, post or service ; (vii) compulsory retirement; (viii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government ; (ix) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government. " 6. It was held in Kulwant Singh (supra) that stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is covered under the concept of major penalties within the meaning of Rule 5 (v) of Rules, 1970 and the imposition of such penalty merely by issuing a show-cause notice to the incumbent and, consideration of explanation is not an inquiry sufficient to punish and inflict the major penalty for which a regular inquiry has got to be conducted. 7. 7. In view of the statements, made in the writ petition in para 14 and 15 and even in respective reply given in para 9 and 10 of counter-affidavit, it is made clear that no show-cause notice was ever given before awarding such punishment and it has been stated that there is no necessity of providing opportunity of hearing and issuance of notice and on the basis of only advise of City Magistrate/prescribed Authority of Nazarat and on the basis of advice given on 28th September, 1996 such punishment was passed on 5-10-96. 8. It has also been submitted that in the judgment of 1993 Vol. 1 Education and Service Cases page 103, Dr. Sadanand Pandey v. Chief Secretary to Government of U. P. and others, Division Bench of this High Court has held that withholding of one increment amounts to reduction in time-scale, which is termed as a major penalty and that cannot be imposed without following the procedure of the departmental inquiry for imposition of major penalty, therefore, withholding one increment was held to be illegal and be quashed. 9. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in view of the interim order dated 16-10-96 where the case of the petitioner was due to be considered by Administrative Officer was considered but he has been superscded because of the pendency of the present writ petition and because of the impugned order dated 5-10-96 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition ). It has been indicated in para 5 to the rejoinder affidavit that it is necessary to state that subsequent to filing of the writ petition, Kannuaj has been created as a separate district and the petitioner was allocated to district Kannauj. At District, Kannuaj continuously the work has been taken from the petitioner on the post of Administrative Officer. However, in granting regular promotion the Commissioner, Kanpur Division has passed an order dated 21-10-2000 whereby three persons junior to the petitioner, have been promoted as Administrative Officer, superseding the petitioner in such promotion. 10. In view of these facts and circumstances, and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the proper procedure for awarding major punishment has not been adopted and without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing the impugned order has been passed, as such the impugned order dated 5-10-1996 is legally not sustainable as such it is set aside. 11. In view of these facts and circumstances, and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the proper procedure for awarding major punishment has not been adopted and without providing sufficient opportunity of hearing the impugned order has been passed, as such the impugned order dated 5-10-1996 is legally not sustainable as such it is set aside. 11. Writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to give the petitioner all consequential benefits, consider him for promotion as Administrative Officer from the date his juniors have been considered and promoted treating the order dated 5-10-1996 as non-est. 12. No order as to cost. Petition allowed. .