Judgment VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. For the reasons stated in the application the order dated November 28, 2005 is recalled. The main appeal is re-admitted for hearing on merits. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, I have heard the learned counsel on the merits of the controversy. The defendant- Punjab State Electricity Board (for short the board) has concurrently failed before the two Courts below and has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration challenging the order dated january 22, 1993 whereby this three annual grades increments had been ordered to be stopped without cumulative effect. The plaintiff claimed that he was chargesheeted on September 17, 1992 and a show cause notice was issued for taking action against him under Rule 8 of the relevant Rules. The plaintiff filed the reply. 3. Without considering the aforesaid reply, punishment order was passed whereby the aforesaid three annual grade increments were ordered to be stopped without cumulative effect. The plaintiff claimed that the aforesaid order of punishment was illegal, bad and violative of the principle of natural justice. It was held by the learned trial Court that after a show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff under Rule 8 of the Punjab Punishment and appeal rules, 1970, then subsequently on receipt of the reply of the plaintiff, a short cut could not be applied and minor punishment could not be ordered without following the due procedure. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. The matter was taken up in appeal by the defendant Board. The learned first appellate court reappraised the evidence and came to identical conclusion as had been arrived at by the learned trial Court. The appeal filed by the defendant board also failed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance. In my considered view, the controversy in question is squarely covered by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Dr. K. G. Tiwari Vs. State of haryana, 2002 (3) ( RSJ 296. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance. In my considered view, the controversy in question is squarely covered by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Dr. K. G. Tiwari Vs. State of haryana, 2002 (3) ( RSJ 296. In the aforesaid case, it has been held that when initially a show cause notice had been issued to a delinquent official for awarding major penalty then subsequently on receipt of the reply of the aforesaid delinquent official, even a minor penalty could not be imposed without first taking recourse to regular procedure for awarding the major penalty. 5. In this case, it is apparent from the findings recorded by the two courts below that originally notice under rule 8 of the Rules was issued to the plaintiff for awarding the major penalty. The plaintiff filed the reply. On receipt of the aforesaid reply, a minor penalty was imposed upon him. It is also not in dispute that while passing an order of minor penalty, the due procedure of imposition for major penalty was not followed. Consequently, the controversy is squarely covered by the judgment in Dr. K. G. Tiwaris case (supra ). No other point has been urged. 6. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is devoid of any merit and is consequently dismissed.