JUDGMENT A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Appellant was employed with the Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, Dharwad. While working as the Mundargi Branch Manager, appellant processed the loan application for the Tractor and Trailer of G.G. Churi and others and when recommending and arranging the loan, there was impersonation of a deceased person and on the appellants failure to register the Tractor and Trailer with due noting of Bank's Hypothecation and obtaining of stamped receipts, machinery delivery notice etc., a notice dated 13-2-2010 was served, to show cause, why disciplinary action should not be taken for the said misconduct. A reply dated 25-2-2010 having been submitted, the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority of the Bank issued and served a second show-cause notice dated 20-4-2011. An opportunity of personal hearing was granted on 26-4-2011. Considering the record, Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 27-4-2011 and imposed minor penalty, under Regulation 39(1)(a)(v) of the Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (for short, 'Regulation') An appeal filed by the appellant, upon consideration, having been dismissed, Writ Petition No. 63962 of 2012 was filed. Said petition also having been dismissed, this writ appeal has been filed. There is delay of 71 days in filing this appeal. Seeking condonation, I.A. No. 1 of 2013 has been filed. 2. We heard Sri. K.L. Patil, learned Advocate for the appellant on the merit of the case. Since, the appeal is being decided on its merit, it is unnecessary to pass order on I.A. No. 1 of 2013. 3. Sri. K.L. Patil, contended that, though the punishment imposed 'reduction of two increments without cumulative effect' is classified as a minor punishment under the Regulations, the appellant having retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31-5-2011, their being no scope for restoration of reduced increments, in effect, the punishment imposed has become cumulative. He submitted that, such punishment could not have been imposed, without conducting an enquiry. He contended that the Bank has thus, virtually imposed a major punishment, without conducting an enquiry and that the learned Single Judge has failed to comprehend the mischievous act of the respondent and has erred in dismissing the writ petition. 4. We perused the writ record. The question which arises for consideration is: Whether in the context of the Regulations, the penalty of reduction of two increments without cumulative effect, is major penalty? 5. 4. We perused the writ record. The question which arises for consideration is: Whether in the context of the Regulations, the penalty of reduction of two increments without cumulative effect, is major penalty? 5. The provision relevant for the purpose of present case is: 39. Penalties.--Without prejudice to the foregoing regulations of this Chapter, an officer or employee who commits a breach of these regulations or who displays negligence, inefficiency or indolence or who commits acts detrimental to the interest of the Bank or in conflict with its instructions, or who commits a breach of discipline or is guilty of any other acts of misconduct, shall be liable for any one or more penalties as follows, namely.-- (1) Officers: (a) Minor penalties: xxxx (v) reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a period not exceeding two years without cumulative effect. Sri. K.L. Patil, did not dispute the fact that, reduction of two increments without cumulative effect is a minor penalty under the Regulations. Merely because, soon after the date of imposition of the punishment, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired with effect from 31-5-2011, in our view, does not make a minor punishment under the Regulations, into a major punishment. Since, Regulation 39(1)(a)(v), noticed supra, provides for reduction to a lower scale in time scale of pay for a period not exceeding two years without cumulative effect as a minor punishment, there is no need for the respondent to follow the procedure prescribed for imposition of major punishment. There is no violation of the provisions of the Regulations or the principles of natural justice, since the petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice dated 13-2-2010, reply submitted was considered by the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority, by providing an opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter, said punishment order was passed on 21-4-2011. The same was upheld by the Appellate Authority on 23-2-2012. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge is justified in dismissing the writ petition. The appeal being devoid of any merit, is rejected.