MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE order, which is under challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 11. 8. 1998 issued by the respondents holding the petitioner guilty of both the charges, which were framed against the petitioner and also imposing upon the petitioner the punishment of reduction of his minimum pay scale of Rs. 3275 to Rs. 3050 for three years, which was directed to have effect on his increments during the period of punishment and even after the end of punishment, this effect would also remain on his future increments of pay. In other words, the punishment which was awarded to the petitioner was reduction in his pay scale with cumulative effect. ( 2 ) ALTHOUGH several pleas were raised in the writ petition, however, during the course of arguments, counsel appearing for the petitioner restricted his arguments only to the nature and quantum of the punishment awarded. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not have been imposed the penalty of reduction in pay scale with cumulative effect. In support of his submissions, the counsel relied upon the provisions of Rule 31 of The central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969 with special reference to clause (d) of said Rule 31. By referring to the said provision, it was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that although a power is vested on the disciplinary authority to impose upon the petitioner a punishment of reduction in pay scale but the said jurisdiction and power did not extend to order for a penalty of reduction in pay scale with cumulative effect. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the respondents, however, submitted that the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and in support of his contention, he relied upon the provisions of Rule 34, rule 40, Rule 70 of the CISF Rules and Fundamental Rule 29. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the respondents, however, submitted that the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and in support of his contention, he relied upon the provisions of Rule 34, rule 40, Rule 70 of the CISF Rules and Fundamental Rule 29. It was submitted by the counsel for the respondents that although specific power might not have been vested on the disciplinary authority under the provisions of rule 31 empowering the disciplinary authority to impose a penalty of reduction of pay scale with cumulative effect and the said power is restricted only to a penalty of reduction to a lower pay scale, yet on a conjoint reading of the provisions of Rule 40 with Rule 70 and the fundamental Rule 29 an implied power should be inferred that while imposing such a punishment of reduction in pay scale, the same could be awarded even with cumulative effect. ( 4 ) IN the light of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the parties, the only question that arises for consideration is whether or not the disciplinary authority is empowered to impose upon the petitioner a punishment of reduction in pay scale with cumulative effect. Rule 31 of the Central Security Security Force rules deals with the nature of penalties, which could be imposed by the disciplinary authority on a member of the force. Clauses (a) to (d) of Rule 31 of the penalty are major penalties and clauses (e) to (h) are minor penalties. It is clearly evident on a bare reading of the provisions of Rules 34 and 35 of the said Rules that the punishment of reduction to a lower class or grade or rank or to a lower time scale or to lower scale in the time scale of pay is included in the list of major penalties whereas withholding of increment or promotion is considered as a minor penalty. Clause (d) of Rule 31 clearly indicates that the disciplinary authority may for good and sufficient reasons could impose on a member of the Force a penalty of reduction to a lower class or grade or rank or to a lower time scale or to lower stage in the time scale of pay. Clause (d) of Rule 31 clearly indicates that the disciplinary authority may for good and sufficient reasons could impose on a member of the Force a penalty of reduction to a lower class or grade or rank or to a lower time scale or to lower stage in the time scale of pay. There is no power and authority given to the disciplinary authority by the aforesaid Rule to impose the aforesaid penalty of reduction to a lower pay scale with cumulative effect. It is, however, to be noted that the aforesaid rules came to be replaced by a new set of Rules, which was promulgated in the year 2001. In the said set of rules, the nature of penalties are provided for in Rule 34. Major penalties have also been shown to be five whereas minor penalties have been provided for under clauses (vi) to (x ). Clauses (iv) and (v) are extracted below for proper appreciation of the contentions raised herein: "iv reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the Government 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 enrolled member of the Force was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade, post or service; v save as provided for in clause (viii) below, reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the enrolled member will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. " ( 5 ) A bare reading of the same would indicate that under the said provisions, the disciplinary authority is now empowered to impose upon a member of the Force the punishment of reduction to a lower time scale of pay with cumulative effect when it is provided that reduction will have the effect to postpone the future increments of pay. Wherever a power is vested on a particular authority by a statute or a Rule, the same is clearly detailed and mentioned in the said Rule as is done under the new central Industrial Security Force Rules of 2001. ( 6 ) IT is an admitted position that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Central Industrial security Force Rules, 1969 were applicable wherein in the nature of penalties provided therein no power for imposition of a penalty of a reduction of rank with cumulative effect is provided. Being faced with the aforesaid situation, counsel for the respondents sought to rely upon the provisions of Rule 40 to state that in case of withholding of increments as a punishment, the order shall state the period for which the increment is to be withheld and whether it shall have the effect of postponing further increments. Clearly the said provision is not applicable as withholding of increment is a punishment, which is in the nature of minor penalty and finds mention in clause (e) of Rule 31, which is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The said submission of the counsel for the respondents, is therefore, misconceived. ( 7 ) HAVING failed in that endeavour, counsel for the respondents sought to refer to and rely upon the provision of Rule 70 of the Rules, which provides as follows: "70. Other conditions of Service:- The Supervisory officers and members of the Force shall, in respect of all other matters regarding conditions of service for which no provision or insufficient provisions has been made in these rules, be governed by the rules and order for the time being applicable to officers holding corresponding posts in the Central Government in respect of such matters. " ( 8 ) RELYING on the same the counsel submitted that where no provision or insufficient provision has been made in the rules, in that event, the condition of service including the power to impose penalty would be governed by rules and order for the time being applicable to officers holding corresponding posts in the central government in respect of such matters as provided for under Rule 70 of the Rules. ( 9 ) COUNSEL for the respondents taking help of Rule 70 tried to rely upon the provisions of Fundamental Rule 29 of the Fundamental Rules. ( 9 ) COUNSEL for the respondents taking help of Rule 70 tried to rely upon the provisions of Fundamental Rule 29 of the Fundamental Rules. At this stage, it is to be made clear that no such plea is taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit, which is sought to be argued now at the time of hearing of the writ petition. In case the respondents wanted to rely on the said provisions in aid of the powers of the disciplinary authority, which is in addition to Rule 31, in that event a specific plea would have been raised in the counter affidavit that such power could be exercised as the power given under Rule 31 is insufficient. Even otherwise, the aforesaid plea which is sought to be taken for vesting an additional power on the disciplinary authority to impose a penalty of reduction of pay scale with cumulative effect on the face of it is misconceived as in our considered opinion the endeavour to take the aid of Rule 70 by the respondents in the present case itself appears to us to be baseless. It cannot be said that there is no provision in the Rules for imposition of penalties or that the provisions made in the Rule 31 are insufficient provisions. Specified and categorised punishments in rule 31 have been provided both as major penalties as also minor penalties. They are complete and sufficient by themselves and, therefore, no addition thereto is permissible. The said provision came to be replaced by a new set of Rules promulgated in 2001 when such specific power is provided for to impose a penalty of reduction in the rank with cumulative effect. That itself proves and establishes that under the 1969 Rules, the said power of imposition of penalty with cumulative effect was non- existent and, therefore, provisions have now been made to impose the said penalty of reduction in pay scale with cumulative effect. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY in the light of the aforesaid discussions and conclusions arrived at by us, we are of the considered opinion that the disciplinary authority has neither any power nor any jurisdiction to impose a penalty of reduction in pay scale with cumulative effect. The only power, which is vested, is the power and jurisdiction of imposition of penalty of reduction in pay scale. The only power, which is vested, is the power and jurisdiction of imposition of penalty of reduction in pay scale. Therefore, the writ petition which is filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. We uphold the penalty imposed upon the petitioner of reduction of his pay scale of Rs. 3275 to Rs. 3050 for three years, which effect will be on the enhancement of pay scale during the punishment but we hold that the aforesaid imposition of penalty directing it to have cumulative effect cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. Therefore, the impugned order, which was passed on 11. 8. 1998 stands modified in terms of this order. The direction in the order which was passed by the disciplinary authority directing that the effect of the said punishment of reduction of the minimum scale would remain on his future increments of his pay is struck down and set aside. The remaining punishment, however, is sustained. ( 11 ) THE writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations and directions.