JUDGMENT : Ramachandra Menon, J. 1. The basic question mooted before this Court is with regard to the scope of Rule 16 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [herein after referred to as the Rules] which stipulates the course of proceedings to be pursued in respect of misconduct committed by the delinquent employee, especially, involving withholding of increments in relation to the period prescribed therein i.e. never to go beyond three years to have it confined as a minor penalty. 2. The respondents before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1129 of 2012 are the petitioners before this Court. Challenge is against Ext. P3 order dated 19.06.2013, whereby the proceedings issued by the Department have been set aside and the O.A. has been allowed, directing the applicant to be considered for promotion as Weapon Fitter (MCM) in preference to his junior. 3. Heard the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Smt. Sreekala T.N., the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent. 4. There is no much controversy with regard to the factual sequence. However, to have an effective adjudication and appraise the issue, some reference may be necessary in this regard as well. The first respondent was working as Weapon Fitter [Highly skilled Gr. I] under the petitioners, attached to the Navel Repair Yard, Kochi. During his tenure as above, he was caught red handed with one bottle of Indian Made Foreign Liquor exclusively meant for Defense personnel [distributed through the canteen service of the Defence] on 04.02.2008. This was obviously a misconduct and a memo of charges was issued in terms of Rule 16 of the Rules. The first respondent admitted the guilt; upon which, taking a lenient view, Annexure R1 order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 12.05.2008, whereby one increment was ordered to be withheld for a period of six months. Shortly thereafter [presumably since the punishment imposed was not a deterrent one], the first respondent/applicant got emboldened to do further such exercise. This time, it was 10 bottles, instead of one and the applicant was caught red handed again on 26.09.2008. On issuance of memo of charges, as pursued earlier, he submitted explanation virtually conceding the guilt. Shortly thereafter [presumably since the punishment imposed was not a deterrent one], the first respondent/applicant got emboldened to do further such exercise. This time, it was 10 bottles, instead of one and the applicant was caught red handed again on 26.09.2008. On issuance of memo of charges, as pursued earlier, he submitted explanation virtually conceding the guilt. Here again, the Disciplinary Authority was too considerate and Annexure R3 punishment was imposed on 15.01.2009 withholding just two increments for a period of three years without cumulative effect. Since the first respondent/applicant was suffering the punishment, he was not considered by the DPC for next higher post of Master Craftsman in the meeting held during the month of April, 2012. At the same time, as per Annexure A1, the 4th respondent herein, who is stated as junior to the first respondent/applicant, was ordered to be given promotion, which was sought to be challenged by the first respondent by filing O.A. with the following prayers : "(i) Declare that the currency of Annexure A2 penalty is over as on 30th June 2012 and declare further that the applicant is entitled to be considered for promotion was Weapon Fitter (MCM) in preference to his junior; (ii) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A1 and quash the same, in so far as it promotes the fourth respondent overlooking the applicant. (iii) Direct the respondents to consider and promote the applicant as Weapon Fitter (MCM) in preference to the fourth respondent and direct further to grant the consequential benefits thereof with effect from the date of Annexure A1. (iv) Award costs of and incidental to this application; (v) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case." The contention raised by the applicant/first respondent was that, by virtue of the mandate under Rule 16 (1-A) of the Rules, if the withholding of the increment was beyond a period of three years, the mandatory enquiry in terms of the relevant rule, as if it were for a major penalty, ought to have been conducted. In the instant case, no such procedure was pursued and hence the punishment was liable to be reckoned as complete as on 30.06.2012. It was accordingly that the prayers were raised as mentioned above. 5. In the instant case, no such procedure was pursued and hence the punishment was liable to be reckoned as complete as on 30.06.2012. It was accordingly that the prayers were raised as mentioned above. 5. The claim was resisted from the part of the Department, pointing out that idea and understanding of the applicant was thoroughly wrong and misconceived. It was asserted that the punishment imposed was only a 'minor penalty' and that, barring of increments had never gone beyond three years, to be contrary to the mandate of Rule 16 (1-A). The first increment was stated as due only on 01.07.2009, which was withheld accordingly till 30.06.2012 i.e for a period of three years. In the case of the second increment, it was never due on 01.07.2009, but fell due on 01.07.2010, and as such, the effect of the said bar was to be there till 30.06.2013. There is no withholding of increment for a period of more than three years and as such, there was absolutely no basis for the claim put forth. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal, though adverted to the mandate of Rule 16 (1-A), held that scope of the said Rule was something else and that since the punishment of barring increment had come into force on 01.07.2009 onwards, it was to be treated as expired on 30.06.2012, and never beyond. Virtually, the contention put forth by the applicant was accepted and the O.A. was allowed declaring that currency of the penalty was over on 30.06.2012; in turn directing the respondents in the O.A. to promote the applicant to the post of Weapon Fitter (MCM) in preference to his junior. This made the respondents in the O.A. to feel aggrieved and hence the Original Petition. 6. During the course of hearing, the learned Central Government Counsel submits that there is no dispute as to the insinuation levelled against the delinquent employee and there is no challenge as to the punishment as well, which has become final. There is also no challenge with regard to the factual position discussed, which stands even conceded. Even according to the applicant, the punishment was to subsist at least till 30.06.2012. Even if the said position is accepted, it was quite not possible for the Department to have considered for promotion to the post in question, as the vacancy had arisen in April, 2012. Even according to the applicant, the punishment was to subsist at least till 30.06.2012. Even if the said position is accepted, it was quite not possible for the Department to have considered for promotion to the post in question, as the vacancy had arisen in April, 2012. This vital aspect was omitted to be noted by the Tribunal and hence interference made vide Ext. P3 is stated as liable to be intercepted. 7. The learned counsel for the first respondent however submits that the maximum period of punishment with regard to barring of increments could only be three years and anything beyond three years will be a taboo, in so far as the denial of promotion is concerned. If the Department wanted to deny the promotion with reference to such punishment, it could have been done only after conducting proper enquiry in terms of sub rules 3 to 23 of Rule 14, as applicable in the case of 'major penalties'. Admittedly, since such a course has not been pursued, as rightly held by the Tribunal, the punishment ought to have been reckoned as over by 30.06.2012. It is also pointed out that, though the applicant was undergoing punishment till 30.06.2012, he should have been considered for promotion in preference to his junior, immediately after the expiry of the said period. In support of the contention advanced by the learned counsel, reliance is sought to be placed on the verdict rendered by the Apex Court in Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab [1991 KHC 1065] and another verdict rendered by a single Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as reported in Punjab State and Others Vs. Ram Lubhaya [1982 (2) AISLJ 62]. 8. We have gone through the above verdicts. In both the above cases, the issue involved was with regard to the punishment of barring of increment with cumulative effect and as to whether such punishment was a 'minor penalty' or 'major penalty'; which was held as a 'major penalty'. The said verdicts do not come to the support of the first respondent in so far as the punishment imposed here is never with cumulative effect, but without cumulative effect. The circumstances envisaged under Rule 16 (1-A) are quite specific. The said Rule is extracted below for easy reference : "16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties: ........ The said verdicts do not come to the support of the first respondent in so far as the punishment imposed here is never with cumulative effect, but without cumulative effect. The circumstances envisaged under Rule 16 (1-A) are quite specific. The said Rule is extracted below for easy reference : "16. Procedure for imposing minor penalties: ........ 16 (1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (b) of sub-rule (1), if in a case it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government servant under Clause (a) of that sub-rule, to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, an enquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to 23 of Rule 14, before making any order imposing on the Government servant any such penalty." From the above, it is quite clear that three different circumstances are mentioned therein to take it outside the purview of minor penalty; firstly, if it should be adversely affecting the pension; secondly, barring of increments should exceed three years; and thirdly, if it is with cumulative effect. Prima facie, it may appear that increment barred in the instant case have been stretched from 01.07.2009 till 30.06.2013 crossing the limits of three years. But then, question to be considered is what is the effect of barring of increments or in other words, the quantum of punishment sought to be mulcted upon the delinquent employee, whose misconduct has been proved. 9. By virtue of the punishment imposed in barring increments without cumulative effect for a period of three years; the punishment actually sought to be inflicted upon the delinquent employee is a monetary loss to the requisite extent, by virtue of barring of the increments, which otherwise would have been paid in the meantime. There is no dispute to the fact that, since the applicant has not challenged the punishment, he is bound to suffer the said extent. There is no dispute to the fact that, since the applicant has not challenged the punishment, he is bound to suffer the said extent. Since two increments have been barred and admittedly since the above two increments were not to have become due simultaneously on the same date [but in the adjacent years], when such two increments are barred for a period of three years, the quantum of punishment sought to be imposed upon the delinquent employee is the money equivalent in respect of those two increments, which were ordered to be barred for three years. In other words, what is contemplated under the Statute, to be a minor penalty, is an increment or quantum of monetary loss, which could be placed upon the employee only with the said extent. To put it more clear, if it was to result in any extent of monetary loss which is more than the above extent, it has to be considered as a 'major penalty', warranting an enquiry as envisaged under the relevant provision. It is in this regard, that the period has been stipulated under the Statute making it clear that, it shall never go beyond three years. In other words, the period of three years mentioned therein is only a measure of the quantum of punishment and nothing more. Viewed in the said circumstances, this Court finds that the view taken by the Tribunal is not correct or sustainable, but for a mechanical interpretation; instead of a purposive interpretation. Statute is to be interpreted, with reference to the mandate, especially, as to the purpose of Statute, as the law is never to be interpreted by letters but by its spirit. 10. Another aspect to be noted is that, even according to the first respondent/applicant, the punishment was to continue atleast till 30.06.2012, which is quite evident from the 'first prayer' itself, as raised in the original application as well, while seeking for a declaration to the said extent. It is also not a matter of dispute that the DPC convened was in respect of a vacancy which arose in April, 2012 and it was against that vacancy, that the 4th respondent in the O.A. was promoted as per Annexure A1 order. It is also not a matter of dispute that the DPC convened was in respect of a vacancy which arose in April, 2012 and it was against that vacancy, that the 4th respondent in the O.A. was promoted as per Annexure A1 order. In respect of such vacancy, which arose in April 2012, since the first respondent/applicant was undergoing punishment even as conceded by him at least till 30.06.2012, there was no right for the said employee to have been considered in respect of the said vacancy. As such, the promotion given by the Department to the 4th respondent was not liable to be challenged under any circumstances. In so far as there is a finding by the Tribunal that the punishment was to be deemed as over only on 30.06.2012 and since it is never under challenge from the part of the applicant and further since it is conceded that the effect of the punishment was to continue at least till that date, the first respondent/applicant could not have been considered for promotion to the vacancy which arose in April, 2012. It is in support of such contention raised by the petitioners, that a person can be considered for promotion only on his coming out of the shadow resulted because of the infliction of the punishment; that they have produced Annexure R4 verdict passed by the Tribunal in O.A. 896 of 2010. There is no dispute in this regard from the part of the first respondent/applicant, who has contended only that such punishment should have been treated as complete on 30.06.2012 and never to have carried forward till 30.06.2013. As mentioned already, since the vacancy was arose in April 2012 and since it was admitted that the petitioner was suffering punishment at least till 30.06.2012, no benefit could have been claimed/extended to the first respondent/applicant in the O.A. In the said circumstances, we find that Ext. P3 order passed by the Tribunal is not liable to be sustained. It is set aside and the O.P. stands allowed. No cost.