Judgment 1. This petition challenges order dated 7.4.2003, Annexure P.8, imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and also directing that the petitioner will not be paid anything beyond subsistence allowance already paid for the suspension period. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was working as a fitter in the office of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, respondent No. 1. He was suspended on 27.3.1998 and given charge-sheet. Allegation of embezzlement of brake leather was made against him apart from misbehaviour, negligence and indiscipline. The Enquiry Officer held the charges to be proved. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed. Contention raised in the petition is that stoppage of two increments and non payment of wages beyond subsistence allowance, for the suspension period, amounted to double punishment. Reliance on behalf of the petitioner has been placed on a judgment of this Court dated 10.8.1999 in PRTC v. Darshan Singh, RSA No. 1596 of 1999, Annexure P.9. 3. In the reply filed, the impugned order has been justified. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 5. Only punishment given in the present case is of stoppage of increments. Enquiry has been duly held and opportunity given to the petitioner. It has not been shown that on merits, the punishment is not warranted. 6. That contention that direction not to pay anything beyond the subsistence allowance for the suspension period amounted to double punishment, cannot be accepted. Suspension pending enquiry is not a punishment and it is not disputed that the same is permitted under the rules. If that is so, subsistence allowance has to be paid according to rules and when disciplinary proceedings do not result in exoneration, nothing beyond subsistence allowance is payable. 7. As regards judgement Annexure P. 9, the same is distinguishable. In that case, withholding of wages for suspension period as penalty, as per regulation which deals with penalties, was under consideration. In the present case, the punishment imposed is of stoppage of two increments and denial of wages during suspension period is a consequential order which cannot be held to be a punishment. Consequential order does not amount to a separate punishment. Reference may be made to judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K. Krishnan, AIR 1991 SC 1898, 1992(6) SLR 734 (SC], wherein it was observed : "4. Consequential order does not amount to a separate punishment. Reference may be made to judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K. Krishnan, AIR 1991 SC 1898, 1992(6) SLR 734 (SC], wherein it was observed : "4. There is only one punishment visiting the respondent as a result of the conclusion reached in the disciplinary proceeding leading to the withholding of increment and the denial of promotion during the currency of the penalty is merely a consequential result thereof. The view that a Government servant for the reason that he is suffering a penalty or a disciplinary proceeding cannot at the same time be promoted to a higher cadre is a logical one and no exception can be taken to Rule 157. It is not correct to assume that Rule 157 by including the aforementioned provision is subjecting the government servant concerned to double jeopardy. We do not find any merit in the argument that there is no justification or rationale behind the policy; nor do we see any reason to condemn it as unjustified, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India On the other hand, to punish a servant and at the same time to promote him during the currency of the punishment may justifiably be termed as self- contradictory...." Accordingly the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.