JUDGMENT 1. - The only point involved in the present writ petition is as to whether the with-holding of two grade increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty or a minor penalty and in case it is held to be major penalty, then as to whether the same can be awarded under Rule 17 in place of Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. 2. The learned counsel for both the parties do not dispute that petitioner was holding the post of Gram-Sewak-cum-Ex-officio- Secretary, Gram Panchayat Arain, Panchayat Samiti Arain, District Ajmer and he was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1958, wherein minor penalties can be awarded. However, the disciplinary authority i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer, who was not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, awarded penalty of with-holding of two grade increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 15th February, 2003. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that with-holding of two grade increments with cumulative effect is major penalty as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishna Dutta Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (1987 (I) RLR page 346) and the said major penalty could not have been awarded without serving a charge sheet on the petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (CCA) Rules, whereas admittedly in the present case, the charge sheet under Rule 17 was served upon the petitioner, therefore, the imposition of major penalty is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set-aside. 4. The learned counsel for the State fairly and frankly did not dispute that the controversy involved in the present case is already settled by the Division Bench of this Court in Krishan Dutta Sharma's case (supra) and the said judgment was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court also. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. The undisputed facts are that petitioner was served with a charge sheet under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958 and he was awarded penalty of with-holding of two grade increments with cumulative effect, which is a major penalty as per the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Krishan Dutta Sharma's case and the said major penalty could not have been awarded without serving a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958. Para 10 of Krishna Dutta Sharma's case is reproduced as under:- "10. A perusal of the seven kinds of penalties specified under Rule 14 shows that under clause (ii) only withholding of increment has been mentioned but it nowhere specified that withholding of increments could also be given with cumulative effect. In case a penalty of withholding of grade increment is imposed for one year or two years then such Government servant is put to a financial loss for a limited period and he becomes entitled to his usual grade increment after such period of one year or two years. While in case of withholding of grade increment with cumulative effect the Government servant is put to a financial loss for the entire period of his future service and the result is that he is put to one grade increment less for the entire period of his remaining service. In our view such penalty of withholding of grade increment with cumulative effect and reduction to a lower stage in the time scale as provided as one of the penalties under clause (iv) of Rule 14 are equivalent and have the same effect. Learned Additional Government Advocate was unable to explain any difference in the aforesaid two kinds of penalties. If a Government servant is given a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the same time scale, then also such Government servant is put to a loss of one grade increment for the entire period of his service after such punishment. It remains undisputed that the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale as specified in clause (iv) of Rule 14 is a major penalty and procedure for enquiry has to be followed as provided under Rule 16 of the Rules. It remains undisputed that the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale as specified in clause (iv) of Rule 14 is a major penalty and procedure for enquiry has to be followed as provided under Rule 16 of the Rules. We are, thus, clearly of the view that in the present case the penalty imposed on the appellant was a major penalty and as the procedure contemplated under Rule 16 has not been followed as such the order imposing penalty is totally without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed." 7. In view of above discussions, it is clear that with-holding of two grade increment is a major penalty and it could not have been awarded under Rule 17 of the Rules of 1958. The impugned order dated 15th February, 2003 (Annexure-5) is, therefore, held to be illegal and without jurisdiction and also contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Krishna Dutta Sharma. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15th February, 2003 passed by the respondent no.2 is quashed and set-aside. No order as to costs. Writ Petition Allowed - Penalty Set Aside. *******