Judgment :- The petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer in the respondent Electricity Board. Aggrieved by the order dated 8. 1998 wherein and by which he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. He was given a show cause notice dated 6. 1998 alleging that he has committed a misconduct of tampering with records. He submitted an explanation dated 7. 1988. On the basis of the explanation and the records available, the second respondent imposed the said punishment. An appeal was made against the said order before the first respondent and the same was rejected by the appellate authority by an order dated 13. 1999. 2. Thereafter the petitioner moved this court with the present Writ Petition. At the time of admission, the petitioner submitted to this Court that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this court reported in 1998 Writ Law Reporter page 486 (K. Govindaswamy vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd rep. by its Senior Regional Manager, Madras 600 086 and another). But however, the petitioner failed to get any interim order and had suffered the punishment. 3. The only point that is urged by Mr. Balan Haridoss, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the TNEB Service Regulations provides withholding of increments as a penalty and makes it a minor penalty. It also provides for procedure to impose the penalty under Regulation 5. When the minor penalty is hedged with a further addition of having cumulative effect, then it partakes the character of a major penalty. In such cases the respondents are bound to conduct an elaborate enquiry in terms of the said Rules. 4. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew support from the judgment of this Court in (K. Govindaswamy vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd rep.by its Senior Regional Manager, Madras 600 086 and another) reported in (1998 Writ Law Reporter page 486). The following passage referred to by the counsel found in paragraphs 10 and 11 may be usefully extracted below: "10. Mr. The following passage referred to by the counsel found in paragraphs 10 and 11 may be usefully extracted below: "10. Mr. N. Kannadasan, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that inasmuch as the punishment imposed is only stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect and also treating of the period of suspension as suspension, which is minor punishment and if it is so, as per the procedure contemplated under Rule 16 of the said Rules, an opportunity to explain the charges alone is sufficient and in this case, the same has been properly complied with. However, Mr. Venkataraman, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if it is a mere stoppage of increment, it would come under the head Minor punishment, but in our case the petitioner was awarded a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect; hence it cannot be termed as a minor punishment as per Rule 16(1) of the said Rules and certainly, it is a major punishment under Rule 16(2) of the Rules. In support of his contention, he has relied on a decision of the Apex Court reported in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others (1994-Volume II-S.C.C.(Labour and Services) page 842). In the said decision, their Lordships have concluded that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and the same cannot be imposed without enquiry. In Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab (1990-2-L.L.N.Page 1019: 1990(61) F.L.R.Page 635), the Apex Court has again concluded that directing stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect would come within the concept of major penalty and imposition of such punishment without an enquiry would be illegal. Following the said decision of the Apex court, J.Kanakaraj.J., in an identical circumstance wherein the present respondent, namely Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation was a party, in A.G. Mohammed Jaffar v. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.(1992-1-L.L.N.585) has held as follows: "It is clear that only stoppage of increment is mentioned as minor punishment. Where the stoppage of increment is continued with cumulative effect for a period of two years, it means that two increments earned by the employee was cut off as a measure of penalty. Where the stoppage of increment is continued with cumulative effect for a period of two years, it means that two increments earned by the employee was cut off as a measure of penalty. Dealing with the similar rule, the Supreme Court of India in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab (1990-II L.L.N. 101), has pointed out that when stoppage of increment is ordered with cumulative effect and the Rules are silent on that aspect, it would be deemed as a major punishment calling for a regular enquiry as prescribed for a major punishment. Following the dictum of the Apex Court, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed..." 11. In the light of the principles enunciated in the above mentioned decisions, I am of the view that withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it, certainly comes within the meaning of Rule 16(1)(b) of the said Rules, but when penalty was imposed withholding two increments, i.e. for two years with cumulative effect, it would indisputably mean that the two increments earned by the employee was cut off as a measure of penalty for ever in his upward march of earning higher scale of pay." 5. Though the learned counsel says that in that case though this Court was dealing with Rule 16(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Rules, in the present case also there is a similar rule i.e. Regulation 5, which provides for minor penalty. Therefore, the said judgment applies in four corners to this case. He also drew the attention of this Court the unreported judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1241 of 2004 dated 18. 2007 in M. Rajarathinam vs. State Bank of India and another. In the said judgment, the Division Bench, after referring to Rule 67(b) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules and also after referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab (1990 Factories Labour Reports 635) held that in the garb of stoppage of increment, if it deprives future increment in the scale of pay permanently, it would amount to a major punishment. 6. In the present case, Rule 5(2) provides for withholding of increment as a penalty. 6. In the present case, Rule 5(2) provides for withholding of increment as a penalty. But in the same Rule with reference to the procedure, it is stated as follows: "The penalties specified in items (i), (ii), (iv) and (vii) shall be deemed to be minor penalties and the penalties specified in items (iii), (v), (vi) and (vii) shall be deemed to be major penalties. The penalties mentioned in items (v), (vi), (vii) as the case may be , shall be imposed on a Board employee for violation of Regulation 25 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees Conduct Regulations relating to bigamous marriage." Admittedly, stoppage of increment is classified as a minor penalty under Regulation 5(ii) of the TNEB Staff Regulations. 7. The interpretation of a Rule will have to be decided only depending upon the Rule position in that organization. There cannot be any general proposition of law in this matter. In this context, the Supreme Court in its judgment in M.P. STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD AND ANOTHER VS. JAHAN KHAN reported in (2007) 10 SCC 88 had observed as follows: "A bare reading of the scheme of the afore-extracted Regulations would show that there is a clear demarcation of quantum of punishment between the minor lapses, delinquencies and acts of misconduct. It is evident that having regard to the nature of acts of omission and commission, the punishment prescribed for minor lapses and delinquencies, ostensibly not having perpetual effect, have been made non-appealable in comparison to the punishment for acts of misconduct, which include recovery of whole or a part of pecuniary loss, exceeding Rs.50 caused to the Corporation, withholding of increments for a specific period, termination of services, removal etc., which can all be characterized as major punishments. Precisely for this reason, all punishments falling in the latter category have been made appealable. The perceptive distinction in two sets of penalties, in our view, makes it abundantly clear that the Corporation has treated the punishments/penalties falling in the first category as minor punishments/penalties and the acts of misconduct, falling in the second category as major penalties. We may, however, hasten to add that it cannot be laid as a hard-and-fast rule that stoppage of increments, with or without hedge over it, is always to be treated as a major penalty, necessitating regular enquiry. We may, however, hasten to add that it cannot be laid as a hard-and-fast rule that stoppage of increments, with or without hedge over it, is always to be treated as a major penalty, necessitating regular enquiry. It would depend on the rules and regulations governing the service conditions of the employee, though ordinarily, in the absence of specific regulations, withholding of increments with cumulative effect is treated as a major penalty because it has a perpetual effect on the entire tenure of service of the employee." (Emphasis supplied) 8. Therefore, in the present case there is statutory Regulations framed and it provides for a summary procedure in respect of a punishment regarding withholding of increment. Even if the minor penalty is hedged with further addition of having cumulative effect, the Court cannot introduce a new element of procedure de hors the Rules. 9. The Supreme Court also by its latest judgment in U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. VS.KAMAL SWAROOP TONDON reported in (2008) 2 SCC 41 in paragraph 34) observed as follows: "34. It is therefore, clear that so far as minor penalty is concerned, it is not necessary for the Corporation to follow detailed and lengthy procedure laid down for imposition of major penalties. In the instant case, the proceedings had been initiated by the appellant Corporation against the respondent employee for recovery of pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by negligence on his part. The proceedings, hence, could be instituted by issuing notice which was done on 11. 2000. The said action, therefore, could not have been held bad or without power, authority or jurisdiction on the part of the Corporation. As we have already observed earlier, even regular show-cause notice was served on 31. 2000 which was also during the employment of the respondent. The High Court, in our view, was wrong in quashing the proceedings and setting aside orders dated 23. 2001 and 24. 2005. The impugned order of the High Court, therefore, deserves to be set aside." 10. In the above said decision, the Supreme Court took exception to the High Court in interfering with a minor penalty by citing procedural violation. 11. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.