Judgment: Sujoy Paul, J.;— 1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of Annexure P-2 dated 27.08.2002, whereby a punishment of withholding of increment for two years without cumulative effect is inflicted on the petitioner. The appellate order Annexure P-1 dated 11.8.2004 is also called in question. It is contended that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice Annexure P-3 dated 2.8.1999. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply running in eight pages, wherein he, on facts explained his conduct and refuted the charges. After receiving reply, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment on 27.8.2002. The singular contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner has taken a specific stand in the reply denying the charges and explaining his conduct, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to conduct a full fledged enquiry. In absence thereof, the allegations cannot be held to be proved by the said authority. Reliance is placed on O.K. Bharadwaj Vs. Union of India reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180 . A recent judgment of this Court in 2008(2) MPLJ 541 (Ajay K Singh Vs. State) was also relied upon. 2. Shri Vivek Jain, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order and disciplinary action. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It is not in dispute that the respondents have adopted M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Under Rule 16, the respondents may impose punishment by way of summary enquiry. However, a bare perusal of Rule 16 also makes it clear that it contains an enabling provision of conducting a full fledged enquiry under Rule 14 of the said rules. Once the allegations in the show cause notice are specifically refuted by filing detailed reply on merits, as held in O.K. Bharadwaj (supra), it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to conduct enquiry for the purpose of deciding the misconduct of the petitioner. 5. In the present case, without conducting any enquiry, the respondents have inflicted the punishment, which runs contrary to mandate of Rule 16 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in O.K. Bharadwaj (supra) and judgment of this Court in Ajay Singh (supra). Thus, the point involved in this matter is no more res-integra. 6. 5. In the present case, without conducting any enquiry, the respondents have inflicted the punishment, which runs contrary to mandate of Rule 16 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in O.K. Bharadwaj (supra) and judgment of this Court in Ajay Singh (supra). Thus, the point involved in this matter is no more res-integra. 6. On the basis of aforesaid legal position, the impugned orders Annexure P-1 and P-2 cannot be permitted to stand. The orders are accordingly set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed further against the petitioner after the stage of filing of reply by the petitioner. Since this is a 2004 matter, if the respondents intend to enjoy the aforesaid liberty, they may do so within six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, failing which the said liberty shall stand abated. Petition is allowed to the extend indicated above. No cost.