Judgment Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. This writ petition has been field with the following prayers:- “(i) That the impugned order dated 2.3.2007 (Annexure P-5), 13.4.2007 (Annexure P-7), decision communicated vide letter dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P-9) and decision taken vide letter dated 12.12.2008 (Annexure P-11) may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing writ in the nature of certiorari. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued, directing the Respondents to grant proficiency step-up from the due date and promotion to the post of Senior Assistant w.e.f. 9.4.2008, the date when juniors to the petitioner have been promoted to the posts of Senior Assistants with all consequential benefits to the petitioner including arrears with interest.” 2. The petitioner is serving in the H.P. Board of School Education in the capacity of Senior Assistant from the year 2009. Prior to that he was Junior Assistant. On 27.6.2006, he was served with show cause notice Annexure P-1 to explain his position as to why he used abusive language and misbehaved with one Krishnu Ram, Superintendent in +2, Section-IV Branch. Allegations against him were that in the presence of other employees in the Branch, he threatened Shri Krishnu Ram to break his legs and teeth. The occasion to hold out such threats was Shri Krishnu Ram’s allegedly sharing conversation with his fellow employee Shri Suresh Sharma that though they both had opened RD accounts together, however, his RD account had to mature in the month of February, whereas, that of Suresh Sharma in the month of January. On hearing their version, petitioner who had allegedly come to the Branch for collection of RD installments and was about to leave the Branch, turned behind and then held out such threats to Krishnu Ram. A complaint Annexure R-3 to this effect came to be made by Shri Krishnu Ram to the st respondent. The same was dealt with and vide noting Annexure R-4 (Colly.), Smt. Manjeet Kaur, Assistant Secretary was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry. She had recorded the statements of Shri Krishnu Ram, complainant and that of S/Sh. Suresh Chand Sharma, Salig Ram, Chet Ram, Dhani Ram, Kishori Lal and Laxmi, Annexure R-4 (Colly.). The statement of the petitioner was also recorded. The Inquiry Officer had also taken on record Resolution of Gram Panchayat, Sakoh dated 22.7.2004 again Annexure R-4 (Colly.) 3. She had recorded the statements of Shri Krishnu Ram, complainant and that of S/Sh. Suresh Chand Sharma, Salig Ram, Chet Ram, Dhani Ram, Kishori Lal and Laxmi, Annexure R-4 (Colly.). The statement of the petitioner was also recorded. The Inquiry Officer had also taken on record Resolution of Gram Panchayat, Sakoh dated 22.7.2004 again Annexure R-4 (Colly.) 3. Annexure R-4 is the report submitted by Smt. Manjeet Kaur concluding therein that they both have personal enmity and a complaint qua that is pending decision before Gram Panchayat also. However, in view of the inquiry she conducted, the act of the petitioner to abuse Shri Krishnu Ram in the office in the presence of other employees amounted to an act of gross mis-conduct. The report was thus submitted by her to the 1st respondent for appropriate action. 4. On the report Annexure R-4 firstly, the petitioner was served with show cause notice Annexure P-1. His reply thereto is Annexure P-2. Thereafter, he was served with memorandum of statement of imputation of mis-conduct Annexure P-3. He has also submitted reply thereto, which is Annexure P-4. The defence of the petitioner, as emerges from his reply Annexure P-4, is that there exists a domestic dispute between him and Shri Krishnu Ram. Shri Krishnu Ram allegedly threatened him on several occasions to implicate him in some false case. He had made complaint to Gram Panchayat also, which has passed the Resolution in this matter. Shri Krishnu Ram, in order to succeed in his illegal designs, tried to provoke him on one pretext or the other, so that he could be implicated in some case. On 4th January, 2006 also Shri Krishnu Ram provoked him by reminding about that domestic dispute and it is in that context he told him that “I have tolerated you for the last four years, mend your ways otherwise it will not be good”. Also that, if such utterance made by him amounted to mis-conduct, he tenders apology for that. 5. Also that, if such utterance made by him amounted to mis-conduct, he tenders apology for that. 5. The reply Annexure P-4 seems to have been treated as admission of the petitioner by the respondent-Board and instead of taking a decision as required under CCS (CCA) Rules and pursuant to his reply and also the preliminary inquiry got conducted in this matter that he was to be exonerated or regular inquiry to be conducted against him, the penalty of withholding one increment without cumulative effect has straightway been imposed vide impugned order Annexure P-5. 6. The orders Annexures P-7, P-9 and P-11 passed on the Service Appeal/Revision/Review by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th respondents have been assailed in this writ petition, being illegal, arbitrary and against the violation of principle of natural justice, besides contrary to the provisions contained in CCS (CCA) Rules. 7. The only defence of the respondent-Board, as emerges from the perusal of the reply to the writ petition is that Smt. Manjeet Kaur, Assistant Secretary in her report found the act of the petitioner hurling filthy abuses on Krishnu Ram in the presence of other employees, as an act of gross mis-conduct and also his having begged pardon to the memo alongwith the statement of imputation of mis-conduct, it was decided to impose minor penalty upon him and such penalty has rightly been imposed upon him vide Annexure P 4. It has also been pointed out that though he was considered for ad-hoc promotion to the post of Senior Assistant by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 13.3.2008 and 25.9.2008, however, in view of the currency of penalty imposed upon him, the orders of promotion could not have been issued in terms of Instructions dated 16.1.2003 in H.P. Hand Book on Personal Matters, Annexure R-2. He, however, was promoted on ad-hoc basis on 2.3.2009, immediately when the period of penalty was over. 8. Having gone through the record and analyzing the rival submissions, it is crystal clear that there is personal enmity on account of some domestic dispute between the petitioner and aforesaid Shri Krishnu Ram. The petitioner admits his presence on 4.1.2006 in +2 Section-IV Branch, where as per his version he had gone to make adjustment of examination fee of some student. The petitioner admits his presence on 4.1.2006 in +2 Section-IV Branch, where as per his version he had gone to make adjustment of examination fee of some student. On the other hand, the allegations against him are that he misbehaved with Shri Krishnu Ram in the Branch and held out the threatening that he will break his legs and teeth to said Sh. Krishnu. What prompted the petitioner to hold out such threats to Krishnu Ram, as disclosed from the perusal of the complaint Annexure R-3 is that the petitioner had come in the Branch for collection of RD installments from other employees. After making such collection when he was about to move out, Shri Krishnu started discussing with one Shri Suresh Chand Sharma, Junior Assistant that they both had opened the RD account together, however, the date of maturity of his account is in the month of January, whereas, that of the account of the complainant in the month of February. This enraged the petitioner and it is at that time he held out the above threats to complainant Krishnu Ram. 9. At this complaint a decision was taken to get the preliminary inquiry conducted. Such inquiry has been conducted by Smt. Manjeet Kaur and the report alongwith records she submitted to the 1st respondent is Annexure R-4. Till this stage, the petitioner was not associated and rightly so as it was a preliminary inquiry. At the stage of consideration of the inquiry report by the disciplinary authority, the said authority had to take a decision either to exonerate the petitioner or to proceed further against him in accordance with CCS (CCA) Rules, as applicable to the employees of the respondent-Board. However, the disciplinary authority seems to have taken a decision to impose minor penalty straightway upon the petitioner after issuing a show cause notice/memorandum alongwith statement of imputation of mis-conduct. The disciplinary authority should have issued a show cause notice on the receipt of inquiry report to the petitioner, because he was never associated in the preliminary inquiry conducted in this matter and it is after taking on record his version to the show cause notice, he was either to be exonerated or departmental proceedings initiated against him under the CCS (CCA) Rules. In the event of taking decision to proceed further against him, a regular inquiry was required to be conducted by appointing someone as Inquiring Authority as per procedure prescribed under sub-Rule 3 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. In the event of a decision to take departmental action only to impose minor penalty upon him, the procedure prescribed under Rule 16 should have been followed. No doubt, vide memo Annexure P-3 and the statement of imputation of mis-conduct annexed thereto, he has been apprised about the mis-conduct and misbehavior on his part. The memo Annexure P-3, however, is not suggestive of the fact that action i.e. imposition of minor penalty was also conveyed to him. 10. Above all, under the Rules ibid, inquiry as prescribed under Sub-Rule (iii) to (xxiii) of Rule 14 should have also been conducted, had the disciplinary authority been of the opinion to do so. It is after taking into consideration the representation, if any, made by the petitioner before inquiry, if conducted, the disciplinary authority should have recorded a finding on each article of mis-conduct or misbehavior. No such procedure, however, is followed as there is nothing to suggest that a decision was taken to impose minor penalty upon the petitioner as provided under Clauses I, II and IV of Rule 11 of the Rules ibid. There is also nothing on record to suggest that disciplinary authority in its opinion deemed not necessary to hold inquiry in the manner as prescribed under Rule (iii) to (xxiii) of Rule 14. There is again nothing to suggest that the disciplinary authority had recorded findings on each imputation of mis-conduct or misbehavior before imposition of penalty upon the petitioner. There is no legal sanctity attached to the impugned order Annexure P-5 for the reason that the same has been issued in complete departure/ violation to the procedure prescribed under CCS (CCA), Rules. The report Annexure R-4 is one sided, as the petitioner was never associated by the Inquiry Officer. No findings that he had mis-conducted or misbehaved with Krishnu Ram could have been recorded without affording an opportunity of being heard to him. The penalty, no doubt, is minor; however, it is due to the currency thereof that he was not recommended for promotion on two occasions by the Departmental Promotion Committee. No findings that he had mis-conducted or misbehaved with Krishnu Ram could have been recorded without affording an opportunity of being heard to him. The penalty, no doubt, is minor; however, it is due to the currency thereof that he was not recommended for promotion on two occasions by the Departmental Promotion Committee. In my opinion, no penalty of withholding of increments, resulting in delay of promotion of an employee, can be imposed upon such employee without holding an inquiry in the manner as laid down in Sub-Rules (iii) to (xxiii) of Rule 14 as per the mandate of Rule 16(1) (a) & (b) of the Rules ibid. The present, to my mind, is a case where the procedure followed for imposition of penalty upon the petitioner is unknown in the service jurisprudence. 11. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, it would not be improper to conclude that impugned order Annexure P-5 being against the Rules and violative of principles of natural justice, is liable to be quashed and set aside. Consequently, orders Annexures P-7, P-9 and P-11 passed by the respondents on the service appeal/revision/ review preferred by the petitioner being legally and factually unsustainable are hereby quashed and set aside. As a result thereof, the case of the petitioner for promotion as per Rules and as per his turn in the seniority has to be considered as if there was nothing against him on the day when the Departmental Promotion Committee met and withheld his promotion only for the reason that the penalty of stoppage of one increment was imposed upon him and the same was in force at that time. Besides, he is also entitled to all other consequential benefits, including proficiency step up. The respondent-Board is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner, if so advised, however, strictly in accordance with law and the observations made in this judgment. 12. With these observations, the petition stands finally disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.