Judgment :- (PRAYER IN W.P.NO.23705/01: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner in proceeding of second respondent vide No.V-11014(I)/10/DAE/LC/SWS/2K/1947 dated 24.03.2001 and quash the same.) (PRAYER IN W.P.NO.23935/01: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified manadamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the second respondent in his appellate order No.V-11014/61/2K/L&R/SZ/7446 dt. 27.11.2000 confirming the final order No.V-15014/Estt.I/MSH/2000/3038 dt.22.03.2000 of the Commandant, CISF Ch.P.T. Chennai the first respondent herein to quash the same and to direct the respondents to pay the amount deducted in pursuance of the impugned orders to the petitioner.) (PRAYER IN W.P.NO.10765/03: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ ofCertiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceeding vide No.V-15014/Maj/2001/PA/2127 dated 20.7.2001 by the third respondent and confirmed in appeal by the second respondent through the proceedings No.V-15014/Maj.01/2001/PA/2998 dated 12.10.2001 and re-confirmed by the first respondent in the proceeding No.V-11015/A-05/2002/L&R/DAE-1528 dated 27-4-2002 to quash the same and direct the respondent to extend the benefits to the petitioner without withholding the increment with cumulative effect.) P. Sathasivam, J. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the impugned order, more particularly, the direction regarding withholding of increment with cumulative effect. It is not in dispute that after enquiry, the original authority imposed a punishment of withholding increment with cumulative effect for certain period. It is further seen that in the appeal/revision though the period alone was reduced, the appellate and revisional authorities confirmed the punishment of withholding increment with cumulative effect. The said order/orders are under challenge in these writ petitions. 2. In view of the limited question and the order to be passed hereunder, we are of the view that it is unnecessary to refer all the factual matrix as stated in the affidavit and in the counter affidavit. 3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by drawing our attention to Rule 31(e) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969, contended that as per the said provision, the authority concerned is permitted to impose penalty of withholding of increment or promotion and not withholding of increment with cumulative effect. 3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by drawing our attention to Rule 31(e) of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969, contended that as per the said provision, the authority concerned is permitted to impose penalty of withholding of increment or promotion and not withholding of increment with cumulative effect. It is pointed out that in view of the above provision, viz., Rule 31(e) as it stands, the authority/authorities can at the most impose the penalty of withholding of increment or promotion. In addition to the same, the Notification No.V-14013/64/88/L&R/1256 dated 14.10.1992, by the Directorate General, Central Industrial Security Force (Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi), is brought to our notice. After considering the above provision, viz., Rule 31(e) of CISF Rules, 1969 as well as the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in 1981(2)SLR 807 [Food Corporation of India vs. State of West Bengal and others], wherein, it has directed all the authorities to note that in all the punishment orders, the words "with cumulative effect" have to be deleted. It is the claim of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of Rule 31(e) of the Rules, as interpreted by the Directorate General of Industrial Security Force, the penalty of withholding of increment "with cumulative effect" cannot be imposed. 4. Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in view of the provision, viz., Rule 31(e) and the clarification issued in the form of a notification by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, the claim of the petitioners has to be accepted. 5. In view of the statutory provisions, as accepted by the Deputy Inspector General in his notification referred above, there is no difficulty in accepting the claim of the petitioner only with regard to imposition of penalty. Accordingly, the impugned orders in all these writ petitions are to be modified as under: the words "with cumulative effect" have to be deleted. In other respects, the orders passed by the original/appellate/revision authorities are confirmed. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.