JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment and order, dated 12th May, 2010, made by the Writ Court/learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 5662 of 2008, titled as Ajay Kumari versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner came to be dismissed (for short “the impugned judgment”). 2. Smt. Ajay Kumari, appellant-writ petitioner was facing a departmental inquiry drawn by the respondents-department, which culminated into the punishment whereby two increments came to be withheld with cumulative effect vide order, dated 6th August, 1998 (Annexure A6 to the writ petition). Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner-appellant filed an appeal before the authority concerned, which, too, was dismissed vide order, dated 7th October, 1998 (Annexure A8 to the writ petition), constraining her to invoke the jurisdiction of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) by the medium of Original Application No. 64 of 1999 seeking quashment of Annexure A6 on the grounds taken in the memo of the Original Application. 3. The respondents-department filed reply and contested the Original Application. 4. On abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application was transferred to this Court, came to be diarized as CWP (T) No. 5662 of 2008. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide the impugned judgment by providing that the orders impugned in the writ petition were not suffering from any perversity or illegality and further held that the authorities let the appellant-writ petitioner off by taking a lenient view. 6. The following questions arise for consideration in this appeal:- (i) Whether the punishing authority and the appellate authority have rightly made the orders contained in Annexures A6 and A8, respectively? (ii) Whether the learned Single Judge has rightly made the observations (supra)? 7. The answer to both the questions is negative for the following reasons: 8. While imposing penalty, the punishing authority was satisfied that minor penalty was to be inflicted upon the appellant-writ petitioner in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, which is suggestive of the fact that the punishing authority had examined the entire departmental proceedings, charge, evidence and recommendation of the Inquiry Officer and had made its decision, rather, conscious decision (Annexure A6), which has not been questioned by the department or any other person. 9. 9. It is apt to reproduce the operative part – para 5 of the order, dated 6th August, 1998, made by respondent No. 2 (Annexure A6) herein: “5. Now, therefore, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the charges proved against the official, I impose minor panelty of stopping the two increments of said Smt. Ajay Kumari, Senior Assistant (Accounts) with the cumulative effect.” (Emphasis added) 10. The two expressions have been used, which will clinch the issue: (i) 'minor penalty', and (ii) 'with the cumulative effect'. 11. The question is – whether withholding two increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty or a minor penalty? The answer is – it is a major penalty for the following reasons: 12. Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short “CCS (CCA) Rules”) describes the penalties – minor penalties and major penalties, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- “Penalties The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely: Minor Penalties (i) censure; (ii) withholding of his promotion; (iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders; (iii) (a) reduction to a lower stage in the timescale of pay by one stage for a period not exceeding three years, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension. (iv) withholding of increments of pay.” (Emphasis added) 13. The simple withholding of increments of pay without further order or direction is a minor penalty. Withholding of increments of pay with cumulative effect does not find place in the description of minor penalties, is a major penalty. 14. (iv) withholding of increments of pay.” (Emphasis added) 13. The simple withholding of increments of pay without further order or direction is a minor penalty. Withholding of increments of pay with cumulative effect does not find place in the description of minor penalties, is a major penalty. 14. Thus, it can be safely held that the punishment awarded in the case in hand is a major penalty for the reason that withholding of increments of pay with cumulative effect has an effect of reducing the pay and that is a financial loss, which employee has to undergo throughout his career, including reduction in retiral benefits and pension, whereas postponement of increments, i.e. withholding of increments is only deferment for a specific period, is to be released after expiry of the said period and only for the said period, he will not be in a position to get the increments, but after expiry of that period, the increments is/are to be credited, but without arrears. Meaning thereby, after expiry of the specified period, the increments, which was/were due at the relevant point of time and has/have been withheld, is/are to be released. 15. The similar question arose for consideration before the Apex Court in a case titled as Punjab State Electricity Board Now Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Versus Raj Kumar Goel, reported in 2014 AIR SCW 6789, wherein, while relying upon the various judgments, the Apex Court held that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is major punishment. It is apt to reproduce paras 14 to 17 of the judgment herein: “14. In Rangnath Rai v. State of Bihar, 1997 (2) PLJR 421 , the Court while interpreting the withholding of increments with cumulative effect opined that the increments earned by an incumbent were cut off as a measure of penalty forever in his upward march for earning higher scale of pay. The clock is put back to a lower stage in the time scale of pay and on expiry of the punishment period the clock would start working from that stage afresh and, therefore, the effect of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is that the employee is reduced in his time scale of pay for the period in question and it is in perpetuity during the rest of the tenure of his service. As the increments that would have earned for those years would not be counted in the time scale of pay as a measure of penalty. 15. The High Court of Delhi in Uttam Kumar v. Delhi Jal Board, 2001 IV AD (Delhi) 166 has laid down the same principle and opined that there is a distinction between the withholding of increment without cumulative effect and withholding of increment with cumulative effect. The former is in the realm of minor penalty and the later is in the compartment of major penalty. In the later one, there is permanent postponement of the increment, whereas in the former one it is for a specified period to be released after expiration of the said period. 16. In our considered opinion the view expressed in the aforesaid decisions is in consonance with the sound legal principle and we approve them. 17. Coming to the facts of the present case, it can be stated with certitude that the trial Court as well as the High Court has fallen into error by opining that if the punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect is imposed for a period of five years, increment is warranted to be released by the end of the year. It is an erroneous perception of the nature of punishment. When there is a stoppage of five annual increments the same are not paid during the said period and thereafter in the sixth year the increments are added up to the regular annual increment. The employee does not get the arrears. But if the punishment is not one of stoppage of increment simpliciter the employee loses the benefit in perpetuity and after expiry of five years he would start earning the increment without any addition and it would start afresh from the first stage because it is a permanent postponement.” 16. The discussion made hereinabove is suggestive of the fact that the concerned authority punishing authority had made a mind to impose a minor penalty, perhaps, was not knowing what is the meaning of the words 'with cumulative effect' and its effects, otherwise, he would not have imposed the said punishment for the reason that he has specifically recorded in the order to impose 'minor penalty'. The same error has been committed by the appellate authority. The same error has been committed by the appellate authority. The learned Single Judge has also fallen in an error in holding that the punishing authority and the appellate authority have not committed any error. 17. Having said so, order, dated 6th August, 1998 (Annexure A6) and order, dated 7th October, 1998 (Annexure A8) are perverse and illegal. 18. In view of the above, we deem it proper to hold that minor punishment of stoppage of two increments was to be imposed upon the appellant-writ petitioner. Accordingly, order, dated 6th August, 1998 (Annexure A6) is to be quashed to the extent of 'with the cumulative effect'. Ordered accordingly. 19. Having glance of the above discussions, the appeal is partly allowed, impugned judgment is set aside and the writ petition is partly granted, as indicated hereinabove. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.