ORDER 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 17.2.1988 (Annexure P-8) of imposing penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect and the order dated 28.11.1988 (Annexure P-10) rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 2. From the record, it appears that the ground of non-holding of full scale inquiry provided under rule 14 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short MPCS (CCA) Rules, 1966 hereinafter) was taken by the petitioner but the learned counsel for the respondents drawing attention of this Court to the response submitted by the petitioner to the charge sheet and the show cause notice submits that there is clear cut admission on the part of the petitioner of the charges framed. 3. A bare perusal of the said response Annexure P-5 to the charge-sheet and Annexure P-7 to the show cause notice, demonstrate that the petitioner had tried to explain his conduct by pleading innocence but also sought forgiveness. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an admission can be treated to be lawful only when it is unconditional and unequivocal in view of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Saxena v. State of Madhya Bharat (now Madhya Pradesh), reported in 1961 JLJ 414 = AIR 1961 SC 1070 . Relevant extract of which is reproduced below :- “In such a case, even if the appellant had made some statements which amounted to admission it is open to doubt whether he could be removed from service on the strength of the said alleged admissions without holding a formal enquiry as required by the rules. But apart from this consideration, if the statements made by the appellant do not amount to a clear or unambiguous admission of his guilt, failure to hold a formal enquiry would certainly constitute a serious infirmity in the order of dismissal passed against him. Under Art.311(2) he was entitled to have a reasonable opportunity of meeting the charge framed against him, and in the present case, before the show cause notice was served on him he has had no opportunity at all to meet the charge. After the chargesheet was supplied to him he did not get an opportunity to cross examine Kethulekar and others. After the chargesheet was supplied to him he did not get an opportunity to cross examine Kethulekar and others. He was not given a copy of the report made by the enquiry officers in the said enquiries. He could not officer his explanation as to any of the points made against him; and it appears that from the evidence recorded in the previous enquiries as a result of which Kethulekar was suspended an inference was drawn against the appellant and show cause notice was served on him. In our opinion, the appellant is justified in contending that in the circumstance of this case he has had no opportunity of showing cause at all, and so the requirement of Art.311 (2) is not satisfied.” 5. Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-7, the replies of the petitioner are neither unconditional nor unequivocal and therefore, they are of no consequences. 6. It is further submitted by placing reliance on the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, reported in 1991 SCC Supl.(1) 504 that penalty of withholding of increment amounts to major penalty since it was imposed with a cumulative effect and thus ought to be preceded by the full scale inquiry on the ground that the cumulative nature of the penalty renders it akin to major penalty of permanent reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay thereby adversely affecting the pensionary benefits. 7. Admittedly, enquiry as per rule 14 of MPCS (CCA) Rules, 1966 has not been held in the present case and instead mere response to the charge sheet and to the show cause notice was sought. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised objection of delay and latches as the petition was filed in 2005 after about 17 years of the order of Appellate Authority passed in 1988. In this regard this Court is of the considered view that this objection fades into insignificance in view the present petition having been admitted on 14.2.2005 and there being no objection raised in the last more than ten years by the employer in that regard. Dismissing the admitted writ petition merely for delay and latches after 12 years of its filing would be travesty of justice. Accordingly, the objection stands overruled. 9. Dismissing the admitted writ petition merely for delay and latches after 12 years of its filing would be travesty of justice. Accordingly, the objection stands overruled. 9. The decision of apex Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill (supra), is to the effect that when penalty of withholding of increment is imposed with cumulative effect, it assumes the character and colour of a major penalty of reduction in time scale of pay on a permanent basis. 10. Consequently, the impugned order of penalty and as well as the appellate authority are vitiated in law as having been passed without holding full scale inquiry thereby denying reasonable opportunity of being heard. 11. Accordingly, the order of penalty as well as appellate authority are quashed. 12. Since the petitioner has retired, the employer is restrained from holding any further enquiry to give a quietus to the matter. 13. Respondents are directed to grant consequential relief to petitioner of pay re-fixation, pension re-fixation and payment of arrears of pay and pension within a period of 90 days from communication of this order to the respondents.