Judgment 1. The petitioner was an Executive Engineer in Road Construction Department. A show cause notice was issued to him with respect to misconduct. On the submission of the show cause order of punishment contained in notification dated 10,1.2000, annexure 1, was passed. The punishment awarded was stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. The order, annexure 1, has been challenged in this writ petition on the ground that no regular proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the punishment awarded being major one would affect his entire service career. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein stand has been taken that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed representation/show cause. On consideration of the show cause/representation the disciplinary authority has passed the order, annexure 1, withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect. 3. The question for determination is as to whether the punishment awarded is a minor punishment or a major punishment. Rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, 1930, hereinafter to be referred to as Rules deals with punishment which would be awarded to the employee. ltem (i) (ii) and (iv) are also punishments and the specific provision has been made in Rule 55A of the Rules that no such punishments can be awarded without initiating a regular proceeding and giving an adequate opportunity to show cause and considering the representation, if any, before order of punishment is passed. Withholding of increment comes under item (ii) which reads "Withholding of increments or promotion including stoppage at an efficiency bar." It does not mention with cumulative effect. Obviously, if no such words were mentioned in the Rules then the court cannot add such words. In similar situation in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 504 the Apex Court with respect to the Punjab Civil Services Rules has considered the entire aspect. The relevant rules were also quoted and it has been held that stoppage of increment with cumulative effect would affect the entire service career of the employee and it would be the major punishment. Such punishment cannot be awarded merely on issue of notice for show cause rather for such punishment a regular proceeding has to be initiated. The relevant rules were also quoted and it has been held that stoppage of increment with cumulative effect would affect the entire service career of the employee and it would be the major punishment. Such punishment cannot be awarded merely on issue of notice for show cause rather for such punishment a regular proceeding has to be initiated. Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Rang Nath Rai vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 1997(2) PLJR 421. In the said case also the decision of the Apex Court was considered and the Division Bench has come to a conclusion that unless a regular proceeding is initiated no punishment stopping increment with cumulative effect can be awarded. However, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a decision in the case of Executive Director, Syndicate Bank & Ors. vs. K.C. Arya & Anr., 1996(2) Labour Law Journal 727 in which Regulation 4(b) of the Regulations of the bank which says withholding of increments of pay with or without cumulative effect was considered by the Apex Court and it has been held that such punishment would be a minor penalty. Thus, it is evident that considering the aforesaid Regulation 4(b) of the bank the Apex Court has held withholding of the increment with cumulative effect is a minor punishment and for such punishment in view of the provision as indicated above there would be no need of regular proceeding. In the case at hand there is no such rule that stoppage of increment with cumulative effect would be a minor punishment. 4. On consideration as discussed above, it appears to me that the order, annexure 1, cannot be upheld. Accordingly it is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner will be entitled to consequential benefits.