ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. 1. The appellant-State of Jharkhand has challenged the order dated 10.01.2017, by which the penalty inflicted upon the respondent-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the writ-petitioner) has been quashed by the writ Court. 2. In the memo of appeal, several grounds have been raised by the State of Jharkhand but the main plea urged on behalf of the appellant is that withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect is a minor punishment –para 7(c) of the memo of appeal– and, therefore, a second show-cause notice was not required to be given to the delinquent officer. 3. Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, the learned State counsel submits that the only question involved in the present appeal is, whether under Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect is a minor or major punishment. 4. The issue contested by the appellant-State of Jharkhand is no more res-integra. It has been settled by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab” reported in 1991 supp.(1) SCC 504, that punishment of withholding of annual increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty. May be the said decision has been rendered in the context of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, it squarely covers the issue sought to be raised by the appellant-State. 5. The learned writ Court has held, as under: “6. Therefore, in that view of the matter the impugned order of punishment being a major punishment i.e. withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect vide Annexures-5 and 6, but as it appears from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents that the respondents are under mistaken notion that infliction of punishment of stoppage of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect is minor punishment. However, in view of the decisions of punishment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill (Supra), the impugned orders being a major punishment, second show cause notice prior to infliction of punishment was sine-qua-non for compliance of principles of natural justice but the same having not been followed by the respondent authorities, impugned orders are not legally sustainable.” 6. For better appreciation of this issue, Rule 5 of Punjab Rules and Rule 49 of the Civil Services Rules need to be compared. 7. For better appreciation of this issue, Rule 5 of Punjab Rules and Rule 49 of the Civil Services Rules need to be compared. 7. Relevant extracts of Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 are reproduced below: “5. Penalties.- The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a government employee, namely: MINOR PENALTIES (i) censure; (ii) withholding of his promotions; (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; (iv) withholding of increments of pay; MAJOR PENALTIES (v) reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the government employee will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay; (vi) reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the government employee to the time scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service from which the government employee was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration that grade, post or service; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8. Rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 reads as under: 49. The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon members of the services comprised in any of the classes (1) to (5) specified in rule 14, namely:– (i) Censure. (ii) Withholding of increments or promotion including stoppage at an efficiency bar. (iii) Reduction to a lower post or time-scale, or to a lower stage in a time-scale. (iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders. [(iv-a) Compulsory retirement.] (v) Suspension. (vi) Removal from the civil service of the Crown, which does not disqualify from future employment. (iii) Reduction to a lower post or time-scale, or to a lower stage in a time-scale. (iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders. [(iv-a) Compulsory retirement.] (v) Suspension. (vi) Removal from the civil service of the Crown, which does not disqualify from future employment. (vii) Dismissal from the civil service of the Crown, which ordinarily disqualifies from future employment; Explanation I.– The discharge – (a) of a person appointed on probation, during or at the end of the period of probation, on ground arising out of the specific conditions laid down by the appointing authority, e.g., want of a vacancy, failure to acquire prescribed special qualifications or to pass prescribed test, (b) of a person appointed otherwise than under contract to hold a temporary appointment, on the expiration of the period of the appointment, (c) of a person engaged under contract, in accordance with the terms of his contract. does not amount to removal or dismissal within the meaning of this rule. Explanation II.– The discharge of a probationer, whether during or at the end of the period of probation for some specific fault or on account of his unsuitability for the services, amounts to removal or dismissal within the meaning of this rule. [Explanation III. – Compulsory retirement of a Government servant in accordance with the provisions relating to his superannuation or retirement does not amount to penalty within the meaning of this rule. 9. In “Kulwant Singh Gill”, dealing with somewhat a similar contention that withholding of two increments with cumulative effect would be a minor penalty, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “4. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5(iv). But subrule (v) postulates reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the government employee shall earn increments of pay during the period of such reductions and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. It is an independent head of penalty and it could be imposed as punishment in an appropriate case. It is one of the major penalties. It is an independent head of penalty and it could be imposed as punishment in an appropriate case. It is one of the major penalties. The impugned order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect whether would fall within the meaning of Rule 5(v)? If it so falls Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules require conducting of regular enquiry. The contention of Shri Nayar, learned counsel for the State is that withholding two increments with cumulative effect is only a minor penalty as it does not amount to reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay. We find it extremely difficult to countenance the contention. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it certainly comes within the meaning of Rule 5(iv) of the Rules. But when penalty was imposed withholding two increments i.e. for two years with cumulative effect, it would indisputably mean that the two increments earned by the employee was cut off as a measure of penalty for ever in his upward march of earning higher scale of pay. In other words the clock is put back to a lower stage in the time scale of pay and on expiry of two years the clock starts working from that stage afresh. The insidious effect of the impugned order, by necessary implication, is that the appellant employee is reduced in his time scale by two places and it is in perpetuity during the rest of the tenure of his service with a direction that two years’ increments would not be counted in his time scale of pay as a measure of penalty. The words are the skin to the language which if peeled off its true colour or its resultant effects would become apparent. When we broach the problem from this perspective the effect is as envisaged under Rule 5(v) of the Rules. It is undoubted that the Division Bench in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, P.C. Jain, A.C.J. speaking for the Division Bench, while considering similar question, in paragraph 8 held that the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, by no stretch of imagination falls within clause (v) of Rule 5 or in Rule 4.12 of Punjab Civil Services Rules. It is undoubted that the Division Bench in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, P.C. Jain, A.C.J. speaking for the Division Bench, while considering similar question, in paragraph 8 held that the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, by no stretch of imagination falls within clause (v) of Rule 5 or in Rule 4.12 of Punjab Civil Services Rules. It was further held that under clause (v) of Rule 5 there has to be a reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by the competent authority as a measure of penalty and the period for which such a reduction is to be effective has to be stated and on restoration it has further to be specified whether the reduction shall operate to postpone the future increments of his pay. In such cases withholding of the increments without cumulative effect does not at all arise. In case where the increments are withheld with or without cumulative effect the government employee is never reduced to a lower stage of time scale of pay. Accordingly it was held that clause (iv) of Rule 5 is applicable to the facts of that case. With respect we are unable to agree with the High Court. If the literal interpretation is adopted the learned Judges may be right to arrive at that conclusion. But if the effect is kept at the back of the mind, it would always be so, the result will be the conclusion as we have arrived at. If the reasoning of the High Court is given acceptance, it would empower the disciplinary authority to impose, under the garb of stoppage of increments, (sic stoppage) of earning future increments in the time scale of pay even permanently without expressly stating so. This preposterous consequence cannot be permitted to be permeated. Rule 5(iv) does not empower the disciplinary authority to impose penalty of withholding increments of pay with cumulative effect except after holding inquiry and following the prescribed procedure. Then the order would be without jurisdiction or authority of law, and it would be per se void. Considering from this angle we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order would come within the meaning of Rule 5(v) of the Rules; it is a major penalty and imposition of the impugned penalty without enquiry is per se illegal.” 10. Considering from this angle we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order would come within the meaning of Rule 5(v) of the Rules; it is a major penalty and imposition of the impugned penalty without enquiry is per se illegal.” 10. The relevant provision under Rule 5 of the Punjab Rules is withholding of increments of pay; sub-rule (iv), and under the Civil Services Rules it is withholding of increments or promotion including stoppage at an efficiency bar; sub-rule (ii). When we compare Rule 5(iv) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 with Rule 49 (ii) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, we find that both are pari materia. Under the Punjab Rules, withholding of increments of pay is a minor penalty, however, Rule-49 of the Civil Services Rules do not specify that withholding of increments or promotion is a minor penalty; under both the Rules the aforesaid punishments are simple, not cumulative. 11. What would be the effect of withholding of increment or increments with cumulative effect is the real issue, answer to which would decide the controversy sought to be raised by the appellant-State of Jharkhand. 12. In “Kulwant Singh Gill”, on a conjoint reading of sub-rule (iv) and sub-rule (v) of Rule 5 of the Punjab Rules, the Supreme Court has observed that withholding of two increments would mean that the employee would be now denied upward march of earning higher scale of pay. That is to say, the employee is put back to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay and it is only on expiry of two years that he would resume the position where he was before the punishment of withholding of two increments was inflicted upon him. Viewed thus, the Supreme Court has held that withholding of two increments with cumulative effect is, infact, a penalty under sub-rule (v) which is a major penalty. Applying a similar logic in the present case, we find that the respondent who has been awarded punishment of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect would suffer a similar disability, may be for one year, but nonetheless the effect would be that he suffers reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for one year, which would be a major penalty. No doubt, Rule-49 of the Civil Services Rules, 1930 does not specify that reduction to a lower post or time-scale, or to a lower stage in a time-scale under sub-rule (iii) would be a major penalty but going by the judgment in “Kulwant Singh Gill”, we have no hesitation to hold that the penalty under Rule 49 (iii) of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 is a major penalty and the penalty of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect is, infact, a punishment falling under Rule 49 (iii). 13. Reliance by the appellant-State of Jharkhand on Rule-55 to contend that the punishment imposed upon the respondent is a minor punishment is without any substance. 14. Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 reads as under: “55. Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries Act, 1850, no order of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement [or reduction] shall be passed on a member of a Service (other than an order based on facts which have led to his conviction in a criminal court or by a Court-Martial) unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and on any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. He shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires or if the authority concerned so direct an oral inquiry shall be held. He shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires or if the authority concerned so direct an oral inquiry shall be held. At that inquiry oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted, and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called, as he may wish, provided that the officer, conducting the inquiry may, for special and sufficient provided that the officer, conducting the inquiry may, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to cal a witness. The proceeding shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and a statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. This rule shall not apply where the person concerned has absconded or where it is for other reasons impracticable to communicate with him. All or any of the provisions of the rule may, in exceptional cases, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing be waived, where there is a difficulty in observing exactly the requirement of the rule and those requirements can be waived without ingustice to the person charged. The full procedure prescribed in this rule not be followed in the case of probationer discharged in the circumstances described in Explanation II to rule 49. In such cases, it will be sufficient if the probationer is given an opportunity to show cause in writing against the discharge after being apprised of the grounds on which it is proposed to discharge him and his reply duly considered before orders are passed.” 15. Rule-55 simply lays down the procedure which the department is obliged to follow where order of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement (or reduction) shall be passed against a government employee. Infact, the expression 'reduction' which has been incorporated in Rule-55 vide Notification dated 17th October, 1957 would indicate that a full-fledged departmental enquiry has to be conducted if a penalty under Rule 49 (iii) is proposed. Therefore, a 2nd show-cause notice to the delinquent employee is mandatory. 16. Infact, the expression 'reduction' which has been incorporated in Rule-55 vide Notification dated 17th October, 1957 would indicate that a full-fledged departmental enquiry has to be conducted if a penalty under Rule 49 (iii) is proposed. Therefore, a 2nd show-cause notice to the delinquent employee is mandatory. 16. In view of the fact that withholding of one annual increment which extends beyond one year, that is, which is cumulative in nature would be a major penalty, we are of the opinion that no interference is required with the order passed by the learned writ Court. 17. At this stage, it is necessary to record that the judgement in “Kulwant Singh Gill” case was cited before the writ Court, a reference of which is recorded in paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the impugned order dated 10.01.2017 by which W.P(S) No. 4705 of 2013 has been allowed. However, in the memo of appeal the appellant-State of Jharkhand has conveniently not referred to the decision in “Kulwant Singh Gill” case. There is no pleading in the memo of appeal, how the judgment in “Kulwant Singh Gill” is distinguishable on facts or in law. Mr. Arpan Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appeal preferred by the State, which must act fairly and its action must reflect fairness in action, is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and, therefore, this appeal warrants dismissal with exemplary cost. 18. We have carefully examined the record of the case including the memo of appeal and having considered the rival contentions, find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed, however, without cost, but with a caution to the Department to act responsibly in future. 19. The appellant-State of Jharkhand is directed to extend consequential monetary benefits to the respondent, within one month of a copy of the order is produced by the respondent.