JUDGMENT B. PANIGRAHI, J. — Petitioner has challenged the validity of the order passed by Administrative Tribunal in O.A No.445 of 1992 dated 8.2.2000 dismissing the petitioner’s application and upholding the punishment imposed by the Opposite Parties. 2. The petitioner has been working as an Inspector of Central Excise and Customs, Berhampur Range, from 31.5.1990 to 29.11.1990. During the period of his incumbency, it was found that he did not ensure proper discipline and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming on the part of a Government servant. Therefore, the authorities had transferred the petitioner from Berhempur Range to Rayagada Range vide transfer order No. 82/Estt/90 dated 7.5.1990. But the petitioner avoided to join in his new place of posting of different pretext as a result of which different charges had been framed for disobedience of the order in not joining at his new place of posting. During pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, he was also kept under suspen¬sion. Pursuant to the charge, he submitted his show cause and written statement of defence. In his defence statement, he has stated that on account of availing leave at the time of transfer as he suddenly suffered from acute Acid Peptic Ulcer and became unfit to work, therefore, he could not joint at his new place of posting and from time to time he extended the leave and during that period he also submitted a representation to the authority for review of his transfer. But such prayer for keeping the order of transfer in abeyance did not yield any result. The enquiring authority after examining the evidence in detail found the officer to be truant, defiant and disobedient and, therefore, suggested to impose a minor penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by such order preferred an appeal before Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Bhubanes¬war, but the appellate authority also did not find any reason to differ from the order of the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, the punishment imposed against the petitioner was confirmed. It was, inter alia, observed by the appellate authority that the disciplinary authority has since taken a lenient view by imposing a minor penalty in stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, therefore, there was no reason to interfere. Accordingly, the punishment imposed against the petitioner was confirmed. It was, inter alia, observed by the appellate authority that the disciplinary authority has since taken a lenient view by imposing a minor penalty in stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, therefore, there was no reason to interfere. The disci¬plinary authority in his finding has held that the petitioner although had applied for leave on account of his illness, how could he undertake a journey of 350 kms to and fro from Berhampur to Bhubaneswar. He had also stated that the representation pur¬ported to have been submitted by the petitioner was only a ploy to avoid transfer and accordingly such punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed. He has also further directed that the period of unauthorised absence from 25.5.92 to 28.11.90 be treated as leave without pay and would not count for period of service. 4. The Tribunal also looking into the facts of the case has, however, observed that it has not come across any procedural of lapse or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority. 5. Mr. Kanungo has, however, tried to persuade us that while the disciplinary authority imposed penalty under Rule-11, Class-(iv) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as C.C.S (C.C.A)Rules’’ though charges were framed for major penalties. The authorities also found that although the departmental pro¬ceeding was initiated for imposing major penalties but taking a sympathetic and lenient view, only imposed stoppage of two incre¬ments with cumulative effect. It has been contended that such stoppage of two increments amounts to imposition of major penalty which comes under Rule-11, Clause-(v) to Clause-(xi). We don’t find any merit in his submission inasmuch as assuming that the charges were framed for major penalties but there is no bar for the disciplinary authority to impose lesser penalties after finding that charges have been proved. A reliance has been placed on a judgment reported in 1991(I) O.L.R. at page 537 in the case of Saroj Kumar Mishra V. Board of Directors. We found that the above referred case was based on Orissa Civil Services (CCA Rules) but the charges have been framed against the petitioner under Central CCA Rules. Therefore, the facts of the above case in no way can be attracted to this case. We found that the above referred case was based on Orissa Civil Services (CCA Rules) but the charges have been framed against the petitioner under Central CCA Rules. Therefore, the facts of the above case in no way can be attracted to this case. Moreover, the nature of punishment have been prescribed in a different manner in both the Rules. It was also held that withholding increments without cumulative effect and withholding of two increments with cumula¬tive effects has different connotation and implication. 6. Since the punishment against the delinquent officer-petitioner was imposed by the disciplinary authority under Rule-11 of C.C.S (C.C.A)Rules, we feel it necessary to quote the Rules in extenso : ‘’11. Penalties ‘’The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely :- Minor Penalties’’- (i) Censure ; (ii) withholding of his promotion ; (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 ; 2(iii)(a) Reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a period not exceeding 3 years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension. (v) Withholding of increments of pay ; Major Penalties :- 1(v) Save as provided for in clause (iii)(a), 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 servant 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 the future increments of his pay; (vi) Reduction to lower time-scale of pay, grade, post or Service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the Govern¬ment servant 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 servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade, post or Service, (vii) Compulsory retirement; (viii) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualifica¬tion for future employment under the Government; (ix) Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disquali¬fication for future employment under the Government. Provided that, in every case in which the charge of accept¬ance from any person of any gratification, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act is established, the penalty mentioned in clause (viii) or clause (ix) shall be imposed : Provided further that in any exceptional case and for spe¬cial reasons recorded in writing, any other penalty may be im¬posed. EXPLANATION - The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this rule, namely :- (i) Withholding of increment of a Government servant for his failure to pass any departmental examination in accordance with the rules or orders governing the Service to which he belongs or post which he holds or the terms of his appointment ; (ii) Stoppage of a Government servant at the efficiency bar in the time-scale of pay on the ground of his unfitness to cross the bar ; (iii) Non-promotion of a Government servant, whether in a substantive or officiating capacity, after consideration of his case, to a Service, grade or post for promotion to which he is eligible; (iv) Reversion of Government servant officiating in a higher Service, grade or post to a lower Service, grade or post, on the ground that he is considered to be unsuitable for such higher Service, grade or post or on any administrative ground unconnect¬ed with his conduct; (v) Reversion of a Government servant, appointed on probation to any other Service, grade or post, to his permanent Service, grade or post during or at the end of the period of probation in ac¬cordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing such probation; (vi) Replacement of the services of a Government servant, whose services had been borrowed from a State Government or any author¬ity under the control of a State Government, at the disposal of the State Government or the authority from which the services of such Government servant had been borrowed; (vii) Compulsory retirement of a Government servant in ac¬cordance with the provisions relating to his superannuation or retirement ; (viii) Termination of the service - (a) Of a Government servant appointed on probation, during or at the end of the period of his probation, in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders governing such probation, or (b) Of a temporary Government servant in accordance with the provisions of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Serv¬ices (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, or (c) Of a Government servant, employed under an agreement, in accordance with the terms of such agreement. 7. 7. In a case where the disciplinary authority proposes to impose major penalties as stipulated in clauses (v) to (ix) of the Rule 11 of the aforesaid Rule, the procedure laid down under Rule 12 shall have to be followed in letter and spir¬it. In this case, the disciplinary authority has followed proce¬dure for imposing major penalty. But while awarding punishment taking other factors into consideration, such as, that the delinquent had never faced any departmental proceeding before and further as a reformatory measure the disciplinary authority im¬posed stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. It is true that the stoppage of increment with cumulative effect may be brought within the fold of major penalty. But since the necessary procedure for imposing major penalty has been followed by the authorities, it cannot be contended by the delinquent that there were procedural irregularities or illegalities while awarding punishment. At any rate, the delinquent petitioner since had leave at his credit, the authorities should have granted leave and regularized his service. Therefore, the period during which the petitioner remained unauthorized absence is directed to be treated as extra-ordinary leave for the purpose of continuance of service, but no salary can be given to the petitioner. 8. The disciplinary authority is well with in its compe¬tency to impose punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect under Rule-11 of CCS (CCA Rules). Therefore, on a careful consideration of the above referred case and after going through the judgment of the Tribunal, we find the order does not suffer from any vices either factual or legal aspect. 9. In the result, we, therefore dismiss the writ petition with above modification. The leave sought by the petitioner is hereby refused. B. P. DAS, J. I agree. Petition dismissed with modification