JUDGMENT : I.M. Quddusi, J. By means of this writ petition, this Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated April 27, 2006 (Annexure P-3) withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect and also declaring Regulation 22(1)(c) read with 22(2)(iv) of the Chhattisgarh Warehousing Staff Regulation, 1962 ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner was working as Branch Manager in the Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation at Surajpur. A show cause notice was issued to him on January 13, 2006 by the Managing Director of Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Corporation, Raipur mentioning irregularities found in the inspection of his branch made during the period November 25, 2005 to December 11, 2005. The Petitioner submitted his reply on January 15, 2006 clarifying the position and denying carelessness from his side. 3. On the basis of reply to show cause, the Managing Director and the Disciplinary Authority issued the impugned order of punishment witholding his three annual increments with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the instant petition has been filed. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The question arose before this Court as to whether the punishment imposed against the Petitioner withholding his three annual increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment or a minor punishment. 6. Before proceeding further it is necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions of Chhattisgarh State Warehousing Staff Regulation, 1962 (for short 'the Regulation, 1962'). Regulation 22 is relevant which is reproduced as under: 22. Imposition of Penalties. 1. Any employees committing a breach of the regulations of the Corporation or being guilty of negligence, inefficiency or indolence in performance of his duties or knowingly doing anything detrimental to the interests of the Corporation or in conflict with its instruction or committing a breach of discipline or being guilty of any other act of misdemeanour or is convicted of a criminal offence shall be liable to the following penalties. (a) Fine (b) Censure (c) Delay or stoppage of increment or promotion. (d) Reduction to a lower post in his permanent class or to a lower stage in his incremental scale. (e) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by the employee. (a) Fine (b) Censure (c) Delay or stoppage of increment or promotion. (d) Reduction to a lower post in his permanent class or to a lower stage in his incremental scale. (e) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by the employee. (f) Removal (g) Dismissal Provided that the penalty of fine shall be imposed on employees of class IV only. 2. The power to impose a penalty under Sub-regulation (1) shall be exercised: (i) In the case of class I employees other than Managing Director, in respect of all penalties by the Board of Directors, and in the Case of class II employees in respect of all penalties except the penalty as specified in Clauses (b) & (c) of Sub-Regulation (1) by the Executive Committee subject to rectification by the Board. (ii) In the case of class III and class IV employees, in respect of all penalties, and in the case of class II employees penalties as Specified in Clauses (b) and (c) of Sub-Regulation (1) by the Managing Director. (Regional Managers to act as Appointing Authority, disciplinary authority and terminating authority in their Region for Class IV staff. Authority: Board of Directors meeting Resolution No. 14 dated July 4, 1981). (iii) In the case of the Managing Director in respect of all penalties except the penalties specified in Clauses (f) and (g) of Sub-Regulation (1) by the State Government in consultation with the Central Warehousing Corporation. (iv) No punishment other than that specified in Sub-Regulation (1) (a), 1(b) and 1(c) shall be imposed on any employee without formal charges being framed against him and without giving him an opportunity for tendering an explanation in writing and cross-examining the witness against him, if any and if producing defence. (v) Notwithstanding anything contained in these regulations, punishment to employee on deputation from the State Government or Government Institution or Co-operative Societies shall be imposed in accordance with the rules and procedure laid down in this behalf in their parent service. 6A. A bare perusal of Clause (c) of Regulation 22(1) would show that only delay or stoppage of increments or promotion has been mentioned, but it has not been mentioned therein whether stoppage of increment with cumulative effect or without cumulative effect is liable to be awarded. 6A. A bare perusal of Clause (c) of Regulation 22(1) would show that only delay or stoppage of increments or promotion has been mentioned, but it has not been mentioned therein whether stoppage of increment with cumulative effect or without cumulative effect is liable to be awarded. But in Clause (iv) of Rule 22(2) provides that no punishment other than that specified in Sub-Regulation (1)(a), 1(b) and 1(c) shall be imposed on any employee without formal charges being framed against him and without giving him an opportunity for tending an explanation in writing and cross-examining the witness against him, if any and if producing defence. Therefore, the punishment mentioned in Sub-regulations (1)(a), 1(b) and 1(c) are minor punishments and rest are major punishments. Delay or stoppage of increments or promotion are minor punishments as mentioned in Regulation 22(1)(c) whereas, reduction to a lower post in his permanent class or to a lower stage in his incremental scale as mentioned in Regulation 21(1)(d) are major punishments. 7. Stoppage of annual increments can be in two ways i.e. one is without cumulative effect and the other is with cumulative effect. Awarding punishment of stoppage of annual increments without cumulative effect, does not affect the future emoluments or scale of pay but if withholding of increments with cumulative effect is awarded, it would affect the career of an employee for ever till his retirement rather it will affect on his pensionary benefits also. Therefore, in our opinion, punishment of witholding three annual increments with cumulative effect in the instant case would come in reduction to a lower stage in the incremental scale of the Petitioner which is covered by Clause (d) of Rule 22(1) which is a major punishment. It has been provided in Clause (iv) of Rule 22 that no punishment shall be imposed without formal charges being framed against delinquent employee and without giving him an opportunity for tending an explanation in writing and 'cross-examining the witness against him, if any and if producing defence. 8. In the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, (1991) 1 SCC 504 Supp. Hon'ble the Apex Court has analysed the above situation in respect of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short "the Rules, 1970"). Rule 5 with regard to penalties is quoted as under: 5. 8. In the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, (1991) 1 SCC 504 Supp. Hon'ble the Apex Court has analysed the above situation in respect of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short "the Rules, 1970"). Rule 5 with regard to penalties is quoted as under: 5. Penalties: The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government employee namely: Minor Penalties (i) Censure; (ii) witholding of his promotions; (iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders; (iv) withholding of increments of pay; Major Penalties (v) reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the Government employee will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay; (vi) reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the Government employee to the time-scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service from the government employee was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration that grade, post or service; (vii) compulsory retirement; (viii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government; (ix) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government. 9. In the above regard, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that withholding of increments of pay simpliciter certainly is a minor penalty comes within the meaning of Rule 5(iv) of the Rules, 1970 but when penalty was imposed witholding 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. In other words the clock is put back to a lower stage in the time scale of pay and on expiry of two years the clock starts working from that stage afresh. The insidious effect of the impugned order by necessary implication, is that the Appellant employee is reduced in his time scale by two places and it is in perpetuity during the rest of the tenure of his service with a direction that two years' increments would not be counted in his time scale of pay as a measure of penalty. The relevant para 4 of the judgment is quoted as under: 4. Witholding of increments of pay simpliciter undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5(iv). But Sub-rule (v) postulates reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the Government employee shall earn increments of pay during the period of such reductions and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay; It is an independent head of penalty and it could be imposed as punishment in an appropriate case. It is one of the major penalties. The impugned order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect whether would fall within the meaning of Rule 5(v)? If it so falls Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules require conducting of regular enquiry. The contention of Shri Nayar, learned Counsel for the State is that withholding two increments with cumulative effect is only a minor penalty as it does not amount to reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay. We find it extremely difficult to countenance the contention. Witholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it certainly comes within the meaning of Rule 5(iv) of the 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. In other words the clock is put back to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay and on expiry of two years the clock starts working from that stage afresh. In other words the clock is put back to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay and on expiry of two years the clock starts working from that stage afresh. The insidious effect of the impugned order, by necessary implication, is that the Appellant employee is reduced in his time-scale by two places and it is in perpetuity during the rest of the tenure of his service with a direction that two years' increments would not be counted in his time-scale of pay as a measure of penalty. The words are the skin to the language which if peeled off its true colour or its resultant effects would become apparent. When we broach the problem from this perspective the effect is as envisaged under Rule 5(v) of the Rules. It is undoubted that the Division Bench in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. ILR (1985)P & H 193 speaking for the Division Bench, while considering similar question, in paragraph 8 held that the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, by no stretch of imagination falls within Clause (v) of Rule 5 or in Rule April 12, 2010 of Punjab Civil Services Rules. It was further held that under Clause (v) of Rule 5 there has to be a reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay by the Competent Authority as a measure of penalty and the period for which such a reduction is to be effective has to be started and on restoration it has further to be specified whether the reduction shall operate to postpone the future increments of his pay. In such cases witholding of the increments without cumulative effect does not at all arise. In case where the increments are withheld with or without cumulative effect the Government employee is never reduced to a lower stage of time scale of pay. Accordingly it was held that Clause (iv) of Rule 5 is applicable to the facts of that case. With respect we are unable to agree with the High Court. If the literal interpretation is adopted the learned Judges may be right to arrive at that conclusion. But if the effect is kept at the back of the mind, it would always be so, the result will be the conclusion as we have arrived at. With respect we are unable to agree with the High Court. If the literal interpretation is adopted the learned Judges may be right to arrive at that conclusion. But if the effect is kept at the back of the mind, it would always be so, the result will be the conclusion as we have arrived at. If the reasoning of the High Court is given acceptance, it would empower the disciplinary authority to impose, under the garb of stoppage of increments, of earning future increments in the time scale of pay even permanently with expressly stating so. This preposterous consequences cannot be permitted to be permeated. Rule 5 (IV) does not empower the disciplinary authority to impose penalty; of withholding increments of pay with cumulative effect except after holding inquiry and following the prescribed procedure. Then the order would be without jurisdiction or authority of law, and it would be per se void. Considering from this angle we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order would come within the meaning of Rule 5(v) of the Rules; it is a major penalty and imposition of the, impugned penalty without enquiry is per se illegal. 10. It is necessary to point out that in Clause (d) of Rule 22(1) of the Regulation, 1962 and Clause (v) of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1970 are similar. 11. At this stage, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents has relied upon subsequent judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Nirmal Singh, (2007) 8 SCC 108 , in which the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the Respondent of that civil appeal (Nirmal Singh) vide order dated October 20, 2003 and the Hon'ble the Apex Court had observed that stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect is a minor punishment. 12. Nirmal Singh, (2007) 8 SCC 108 , in which the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the Respondent of that civil appeal (Nirmal Singh) vide order dated October 20, 2003 and the Hon'ble the Apex Court had observed that stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect is a minor punishment. 12. In view of above conflicting decisions in respect of the same Rule i.e. Rule 5 of the Rules, 1970, the three Judges bench of Apex Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab (supra) has held that stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect would amount to major punishment and the subsequent decision of the Apex Court of two Judges bench in the case of State of Punjab (supra) it has been held that stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect would amount to minor punishment. 13. Without going further into this controversy, we come to the well settled law of Hon'ble the Apex Court that law laid down by a bench of larger strength of the Apex Court would prevail over the bench of lesser strength. This is supported by a Constitution bench in the case of Central Board of Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2005) 2 SCC 673 . 14. Since the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab (supra) has been decided by the three Judges bench and the case of State of Punjab v. Nirmal Singh (supra) has been decided by two Judges bench, in our opinion, the decision of the larger bench will prevail over the decision of the lesser strength of two Judges. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that in the instant case stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment which would come under Clause (d) of Rule 22(1) of the Regulation, 1962 and in that case, the Respondents should have followed the provisions of Clause (iv) of Rule 22(2) thereof but the same has not been done. Therefore, the punishment imposed against the Petitioner is without providing him reasonable opportunity to defend his case which is against the provisions of law. 15. Therefore, the punishment imposed against the Petitioner is without providing him reasonable opportunity to defend his case which is against the provisions of law. 15. With regard to prayer regarding Rule 22(1)(c) of the Regulation, 1962 ultra vires the Article 14 of the Constitution, in view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that Regulation 22(1)(c) is not ultra vires of the Constitution as both the clauses i.e. stoppage of annual increments simpliciter, without cumulative effect and stoppage of annual increments with cumulative effect would come under the category as already mentioned above. 16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned order of punishment dated April 27, 2006 is quashed but this will not debar the Respondents to conduct enquiry in accordance with law. 17. No order as to costs.