JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed assailing the order inflicting penalty upon the petitioner of withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 28.04.2007 in an enquiry initiated u/R.17 of the CCA Rules, 1958. 2. Counsel for petitioner submits that in the light of judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Dutta Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, [RLR 1987 (I)346] wherein it has been held that withholding of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty which could have been inflicted only after holding enquiry u/R.16 of the CCA Rules,1958. In the instant case the penalty imposed upon the petitioner of withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect being a major penalty could not have been inflicted upon without initiating inquiry u/R.16 of the CCA Rules,1958 and the order of inflicting penalty impugned herein is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed. He has further tried to persuade this Court that even on merits the allegations levelled against the petitioner are not sustainable and the finding recorded in the enquiry held u/R.17 is not tenable and that too deserves to be set aside. 3. Counsel for respondent submits that ample opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner after the notice u/R. 17 of the CCA Rules,1958 being served and since the reply was not found to be satisfactory and no reasonable justification came forward, he was held guilty and penalty (supra) was inflicted upon him under order impugned and no error has been committed while following the procedure provided under Rules,1958. 4. This Court has considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. 5. The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment (supra) after taking note of judgment of Supreme Court has finally observed that rule of penalty is provided u/R.14 of the Rules and one of the penalty is in regard of stoppage of increment. However, after examining the question for consideration observed that if the penalty is in view of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect it tantamounts to a major penalty and the same could not have been inflicted upon the delinquent unless inquiry u/R.16 of the CCA Rules,1958 being initiated against him and observed in para 10 as under:- "10. However, after examining the question for consideration observed that if the penalty is in view of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect it tantamounts to a major penalty and the same could not have been inflicted upon the delinquent unless inquiry u/R.16 of the CCA Rules,1958 being initiated against him and observed in para 10 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 no-where 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. 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." 6. 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." 6. In the light of judgment (supra), this Court also finds substance in the submission of counsel for petitioner and in the instant case penalty of two grade increments with cumulative effect has been inflicted upon the petitioner vide order dated 28.04.2007 in the inquiry initiated u/R.17 of the Rules,1958 which indisputably as held by this Court is a major penalty could not have been inflicted upon the petitioner delinquent without a regular inquiry being initiated u/R.16 of the CCA Rules,1958. 7. Counsel for petitioner further submits that on account of penalty inflicted upon the petitioner which is impugned in the instant petition it was considered to be an adverse factor and he has been superseded while promotions were made on the post of Assistant Engineer. 8. Since the order of penalty (supra) inflicted upon the petitioner has been set aside, it will be open for the respondents to consider afresh in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order of penalty inflicted upon the petitioner dated 28.04.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, respondents are at liberty to proceed further against the petitioner-delinquent if so advised in accordance with law. No cost.Petition Allowed. *******