JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The sole respondent has not appeared in this case in spite of valid service of notice upon him. 2. By order dated 23.03.2017, notice was directed to be issued to the sole respondent. When the notice was validly served upon the sole respondent, the matter was listed on 11.05.2017, when this Court taking note of the fact that the notice was validly served, but the sole respondent had not yet appeared, adjourned the matter to be listed after summer vacations, awaiting the appearance of the sole-respondent. Again this matter was listed on 06.10.2017, when again we noted that the sole respondent had not yet appeared and adjourned the matter by one month giving him further chance to appear in this case. As the sole-respondent has not yet appeared in spite of valid service of notice upon him, and even awaiting his appearance for a considerably long time, we are deciding the matter on merits ex parte. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the part of the order dated 12.10.2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Sitting at Ranchi, in O.A. No. 25 of 2012 (R), whereby on the Original Application filed by the sole-respondent against the minor penalty of withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect, the order of punishment was set aside and the petitioners were directed to give personal hearing to the original applicant and to pass a fresh order on the quantum of punishment after hearing the applicant. It may be stated that there was no interference by the Central Administrative Tribunal against finding the appellant guilty of the charge of misconduct. 4. The impugned order shows that two questions were formulated by the Central Administrative Tribunal for adjudication of the case, which are as under:- (i) Whether there is merit in the argument of the applicant that he is not at all concerned with the matter and the alleged irregularity in the accounts happened before he had joined his post? (ii) If it is held that the applicant had indeed some hand in the matter, is the enquiry or punishment vitiated due to any serious legal lacuna? 5. The sole-respondent was put under departmental proceeding for the charges, part of which had been initiated prior to the joining of the sole-respondent and part of which after his joining the office. (ii) If it is held that the applicant had indeed some hand in the matter, is the enquiry or punishment vitiated due to any serious legal lacuna? 5. The sole-respondent was put under departmental proceeding for the charges, part of which had been initiated prior to the joining of the sole-respondent and part of which after his joining the office. The Central Administrative Tribunal has noted in the order that the Enquiry Officer had been very fair in removing all the documents or charges prior to the original applicant's joining of his office and only lapses that happened in his period were considered against him. Thus, the original applicant had not been held guilty for fraud or malafide, but he was held guilty only for the supervisory lapses, being the head of the organization or unit. The other employee, who had been found guilty for the fraud and malafide, was awarded the major penalty, whereas the original applicant, who had only been found guilty for the supervisory lapses, was awarded the minor penalty of withholding of two annual increments without cumulative effect. While adjudicating the case, the Central Administrative Tribunal has given the finding that it did not find anything palpably wrong or illegal in the charge sheet or in the enquiry report. Thus the first question formulated by the Tribunal was answered accordingly. 6. It was only on the second question formulated by the Tribunal, i.e., on the quantum of the punishment, the minor penalty awarded to the original-applicant was set aside, and the petitioners were directed to give a personal hearing to the original applicant before passing the order on quantum of punishment, and to pass the order of punishment afresh after hearing the applicant. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and upon going through the impugned order, we find that only minor penalty was imposed against the original applicant and there was no requirement under the law for giving any personal hearing to the original applicant before passing the minor penalty. In State of Punjab v. Nirmal Singh, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 108 , the Apex Court has held as follows:- "6. ---------. Admittedly, by an order dated 20-10-2003, the respondent was inflicted punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, which is a minor punishment. In State of Punjab v. Nirmal Singh, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 108 , the Apex Court has held as follows:- "6. ---------. Admittedly, by an order dated 20-10-2003, the respondent was inflicted punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, which is a minor punishment. The High Court, in our view, was clearly in error in setting aside the order dated 24-6-2004 passed by the competent authority on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. ----------." 8. In the facts of the case, we are satisfied find from the impugned order that there is nothing therein to suggest that the punishment imposed upon the original applicant was disproportionate to the charges of misconduct. As such, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, setting aside the minor penalty, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 12.10.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Sitting at Ranchi, in O.A. No. 25 of 2012(R), so far it interferes with the punishment imposed upon the sole-respondent, is hereby, set aside. 10. This writ application is accordingly, allowed.