JUDGMENT Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J.:- The present petition has been filed for quashing of impugned orders dated 7.1.2009 (Annexure P-3) and 14.6.2010 (Annexure P-5) and also for issuing directions to respondents-authority to release two increments with consequential service benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she was working as Clerk since 30.11.1978 in the office of Secretary, HUDA, Sector 18, Chandigarh and later on promoted to the post of Assistant. On 29.10.2007, a memorandum was issued to the petitioner proposing action against her under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules 1987’) on the ground that she had accepted 15% allotment amount of a plot at her own level even after the lapse of 110 days from the date of allotment of the plot. As per condition No.5 of the allotment letter dated 2.5.2001, the amount was to be deposited within a period of thirty days but the same was not deposited within the time fixed and inspite of said condition, the amount was accepted by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted her reply stating that an application for condonation of delay along with two bank drafts was marked to record keeper. It was also mentioned in the reply that the petitioner was relieved on 27.9.2001 from the Estate Office, HUDA and joined her duties in the office of Executive Engineer, HUDA, Division Sonepat and, therefore, she cannot be held liable. After considering her reply and taking a lenient view the charge was converted from Rule 7 to Rule 8 of the Rules and vide order dated 7.1.2009 a penalty of stoppage of two increments for three years was imposed. The said order was challenged before the Financial Commissioner by way of filing an appeal and vide order dated 14.6.2010 the penalty of stoppage of two increments for a period of three years was reduced to penalty of stoppage of two increments for a period of two years. Thereafter the petitioner retired from services of HUDA on 31.8.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. 3. The present petition has been filed to challenge both the orders dated 7.1.2009 as well as 14.6.2010 by raising various grounds. Thereafter the petitioner retired from services of HUDA on 31.8.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation. 3. The present petition has been filed to challenge both the orders dated 7.1.2009 as well as 14.6.2010 by raising various grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of respondents is not only illegal but contrary to Rules as chargesheet was issued under Rule 7 and the same was later on converted under Rule 8 of the Rules without conducting any inquiry and as such the impugned orders are not sustainable under the law. Learned counsel also submits that keeping in view the allegations, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is on the higher side and even the warning could have served the purpose for the lapse, if any, on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel has also relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Dr. K.G. Tiwari Vs. State of Haryana 2002 (4) SLR 329, wherein, it has been held that once the chargesheet has been issued for imposition of a major penalty and merely by examining reply and without conducting any regular inquiry, even a minor punishment cannot be imposed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State as well as respondent No.3 submit that it was a case under Rule 7 but by taking a lenient view the same was converted under Rule 8 of the Rules. The punishing authority awarded stoppage of two increments for three years and thereafter on appeal, the same was reduced to stoppage of two increments for two years. Learned counsel also submits that for imposing minor penalty, no regular inquiry is required. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has already retired on 31.8.2010. 5. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned orders as well as other documents available on file. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant after promotion from the post of Clerk. As per terms and conditions of allotment of a plot to the allottee, 15% amount was to be deposited within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter but the same was not deposited. As per allegations, the amount was accepted after expiry of period of thirty days. As per terms and conditions of allotment of a plot to the allottee, 15% amount was to be deposited within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of allotment letter but the same was not deposited. As per allegations, the amount was accepted after expiry of period of thirty days. The stand of the petitioner is that an application alongwith two bank drafts was marked to record keeper and a receipt in this regard was also issued but thereafter the case was not put up for necessary action before the higher authorities. It is also the stand of the petitioner that she was relieved from Estate Office, HUDA on 27.9.2001 and joined her duty in the office of Executive Engineer, HUDA at Sonepat. The case under Rule 7 of the Rules was made out against the petitioner but after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, it was converted under Rule 8 of the Rules and thereafter a penalty of stoppage of two increments for a period of three years was imposed by the punishing authority and thereafter it was reduced to stoppage of two increments for two years by the Appellate Authority. 7. Now the question for consideration before this Court is as to whether the penalty of minor punishment can be imposed without conducting any inquiry or not. 8. Before dealing with the issue, it is appropriate to reproduce Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules, which are as under:- “7. Inquiry before imposition of certain penalties. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Enquiries) Act, 1950, no order of imposing a major penalty shall be passed against a person to whom these rules are applicable unless he has given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. Inquiry before imposition of certain penalties. (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Enquiries) Act, 1950, no order of imposing a major penalty shall be passed against a person to whom these rules are applicable unless he has given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. (2) The grounds on which it is proposed to take such action shall be reduced to the form of definite charge or charges which shall be communicated in writing to be persons charged together with a statement of allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take up into consideration in passing orders on the case and he shall be required within a reasonable time to state in writing whether he admits the truth of all or any, of the charges what explanation of defence, if any, he has to offer and whether he desires to be heard in person. If the punishing authority is not satisfied with the explanation given by the person charged or there are other reasons to do so shall direct that an enquiry shall be held at which all evidence shall be heard as to such of the charges as are not admitted. The persons charged shall, subject to the conditions described in Sub-Rule (3), be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to given evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish, provided that the officer conducting the enquiry may for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call any witness. The persons charged shall, subject to the conditions described in Sub-Rule (3), be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to given evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish, provided that the officer conducting the enquiry may for reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call any witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record or the evidence and statement of the findings and the grounds thereof provided that - (a) it shall not be necessary to frame any additional charge when it is proposed to take action in respect of any statement of allegation made by the person charged in the course of his defence; and (b) the provisions of the foregoing sub-rule shall not apply where any major penalty is proposed to be imposed upon a person on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or where an authority empowered to dismiss or remove him, or reduce him in rank is satisfied that, for some reasons to be recorded by him in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to give him an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, or where in the interest of the security of the State it is considered not expedient to give to that person such an opportunity.” Rule 8 of the Rules reads as follow :- “Without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 7, no order for imposing a minor penalty shall be passed on a Government employee, unless he has been given an adequate opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make, and such representation has been taken into consideration. (Provisos omitted as not relevant for our purpose).” 9. For imposing major penalty, long procedure has been prescribed. The object of Rules 7 and 8 is to give reasonable opportunity to show cause the action proposed to be taken against the concerned employee. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 require the grounds, on which the action is proposed to be taken and for that a definite charge or charges are to be communicated in writing to the person charged with statement of allegations. The concerned chargesheeted employee is called upon to submit his explanation in defence, if any. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 require the grounds, on which the action is proposed to be taken and for that a definite charge or charges are to be communicated in writing to the person charged with statement of allegations. The concerned chargesheeted employee is called upon to submit his explanation in defence, if any. In case the explanation is not found to be satisfactory, the enquiry is to be conducted, for which evidence is required with regard to charges which are not admitted. The chargesheeted employee has to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and for that purpose, the chargesheeted employee is permitted to give evidence and also to examine witnesses in his defence. Whether the chargesheet is given under Rule 8 of the Rules for imposition of minor penalty, the chargesheeted employee is to be given an opportunity to submit his/her explanation. On giving personal hearing or after considering the reply of an employee, the disciplinary authority imposes a minor punishment. In case the procedure required under Rule 8 is not followed, then it would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. In case the chargesheet is issued under Rule 7 to an employee and after considering his/her explanation, a minor penalty is imposed as per Rule 8, a serious prejudice will be caused to the chargesheeted employee. Simply by stating that explanation of the chargesheeted employee has been considered and minor punishment has been awarded is not sufficient as has been done in the present case. Different procedures have been prescribed for Rule 7 and Rule 8 and in violation of that procedure, the action is not only unjust but arbitrary also. The said rules are intended to safeguard the rights of such chargesheeted employee and to comply with the principles of natural justice. The Full Bench of this Court in Dr. K.G. Tiwari’s case (supra) has specifically held that a regular enquiry should be conducted even in case of imposition of minor penalty when charge has been issued under Rule 7 of the Rules. 10. The Full Bench of this Court in Dr. K.G. Tiwari’s case (supra) has specifically held that a regular enquiry should be conducted even in case of imposition of minor penalty when charge has been issued under Rule 7 of the Rules. 10. In the present case, admittedly, no enquiry was conducted and only after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, it was found that it was not a case of major penalty and by taking a lenient view minor penalty of stoppage of two increments for a period of three years was imposed, which was subsequently reduced to stoppage of two increments for a period of two years by the Appellate Authority. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reply of the chargesheet was considered and it was found that imposition of minor penalty would be appropriate and, therefore, without holding regular departmental inquiry, as contemplated under Rule 7, the minor punishment was imposed. It is also an argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even in case of imposition of minor penalty the inquiry was required to be conducted. 11. In case of State of Punjab Vs. Manphul Singh, 1986(1) SLR 484, the chargesheet was issued under Rule 8 but minor punishment was imposed without conducting an inquiry. The Court held that once after issuing chargesheet under Rule 7, for imposing minor penalty, the procedure as required under Rule 8 has to be followed for awarding minor punishment under Rule 9 (3) of the Rules. 12. Similarly in another decision of Single Bench of this Court in Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. PSEB, 1989 (5) SLR 150, wherein, judgment of Manphul Singh’s case (supra) has been relied, it has been held that the procedure as provided under the Rules is to be followed even for imposition of minor penalty and in absence thereof the impugned order was set aside. Subsequently in two other judgments of this Court in Hukam Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1997 (2) SCT 134 as well as Ram Kumar Goel Vs. State of Haryana, 1992 (1) SCT 66 this view was taken. 13. The Full bench of this Court in Dr. K.G. Tiwari’s case (supra) has held that once the chargesheet has been issued under Rule 7 of the Rules for imposition of major penalty then minor penalty cannot be imposed without holding any departmental inquiry. State of Haryana, 1992 (1) SCT 66 this view was taken. 13. The Full bench of this Court in Dr. K.G. Tiwari’s case (supra) has held that once the chargesheet has been issued under Rule 7 of the Rules for imposition of major penalty then minor penalty cannot be imposed without holding any departmental inquiry. The aforesaid judgment of Full Bench of this Court has also been relied upon in Single Bench judgment of this Court in Guparkash Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another 2009 (8) SLR 36. The relevant para of this judgment is reproduced as under:- Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the controversy raised in the instant petition is fully covered by the ratio of the judgement rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr.K.G.Tiwari v. State of Haryana and others 2002(4) SLR 329 wherein it has been held that once a charge sheet has been issued then a regular departmental enquiry is required to be held even for inflicting a minor penalty. The view taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court has been approved by the Full Bench in Dr. K.G.Tiwari’s case (supra). The rationale of the Full Bench in Dr. K.G.Tiwari’s case (supra) appears to be that the State Government cannot take shelter behind the provision providing for minor penalty by avoiding to hold departmental enquiry for the fear of lack of evidence. Therefore, the possibility of not proving the charge cannot result into infliction of minor penalty. The observations made by the Full Bench in para 24 reads thus: “ ..... In a case where a charge sheet is issued under Rule 7 for the imposition of a major penalty, if the disciplinary authority, after receiving the reply to the charge sheet, finds that there is no material against the chargesheeted employee and therefore, after holding of a regular enquiry, it will not be in a position to punish the chargesheeted employee, but still, for its own reasons wants to impose some punishment on him, then, the disciplinary authority will chose to adopt the methodology of dropping the procedure contemplated under Rule 7 and simply state that the explanation of the chargesheeted employee has been considered, and impose a minor punishment. This is not the object of having two different sets of procedures in the form of Rule 7 and Rule 8. The object of prescribing these rules for holding disciplinary proceedings is to protect the chargesheeted employee from arbitrary and capricious exercise of power by disciplinary authority and from unjust and illegal punishments. These Rules are intended to safeguard the rights of such chargesheeted employees and to comply with the principles of natural justice.” 14. In view of the facts as mentioned above as well as law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Dr. K.G. Tiwari’s case (supra), which has further been followed in other judgments as mentioned above, the present petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 7.1.2009 (Annexure P-3) and 4.6.2010 (Annexure P-5) are set aside being violative of principles of nature justice. No order as to cost.