JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred for the following relief: “1. That, is the instant writ application the petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writs/orders/directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification contained in Memo No. 3497 (S) dated 21.06.2011 issued under the signature of the Respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder in a most arbitrary and unsustainable manner without even providing the enquiry report and issuing second show cause to the Petitioner, he has been held guilty and the following punishment has been imposed upon the Petitioner:- (i) Stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. (ii) Recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,90,240/- from the Petitioner. The Petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate writs/orders/directions for quashing of the letter contained in Memo No. 1535 (S) dated 05.03.2012 issued under the signature of the Respondent Deputy Secretary whereby and whereunder a deduction/ recovery of Rs. 29,024/- per month for ten months has been directed from the salary of the Petitioner. The Petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate orders or command upon the Respondent Authorities to consider and dispose of the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 21.06.2011 passed by the Disciplinary Authority And to not to recover the alleged amount till the pendency of the departmental appeal preferred by the Petitioner. For passing such other or further orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of Justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the departmental proceeding, the Inquiry Officer has recommended revoking the suspension of the petitioner after withholding one increment. However, from perusal of the impugned order of punishment, it clearly transpires that there was a direction for stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect and further there was a direction to recover an amount of Rs. 2,90,240/- from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further draws attention towards Paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, wherein there is a specific statement of the respondent authorities that since the petitioner has been awarded minor penalty as such, second show cause notice and enquiry report has not been issued/served to him. 2,90,240/- from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further draws attention towards Paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, wherein there is a specific statement of the respondent authorities that since the petitioner has been awarded minor penalty as such, second show cause notice and enquiry report has not been issued/served to him. He further contended that the statement made in Paragraph 15 clearly transpires that no enquiry report or any second show-cause notice was given to the petitioner on the ground that the punishment is not a major punishment and for minor punishment, there is no requirement of giving second show cause and/or enquiry report. He contended that this action of the respondent is totally against the settled principles of law as laid down in catena of judgments. In order to buttress his argument, he relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board Now Punjab State Power Corporation Limited vs. Raj Kumar Goel, (2014) 15 SCC 748 , wherein at Paragraph 9 to 15 the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the law as under: “9. At the very outset, we may clearly state that there is no discord or dispute over the exposition of facts. The controversy has arisen with regard to implementation of the order of punishment imposed by the authority on the delinquent employee. The courts below have opined that though it is mentioned in the order of punishment that there is stoppage of five increments without cumulative effect which is a minor punishment yet the manner of implementation converts it to a major punishment. There can be no cavil over the proposition that when a punishment of stoppage of an increment with cumulative effect is imposed, it is a major punishment. In this regard, we may refer with profit to the decision in Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab, wherein it has been held that withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it certainly would be a minor punishment but withholding of increments with cumulative effect, the consequences being quite hazardous to the employee, it would come in the compartment of major punishment. Proceeding further the two-Judge Bench stated thus: (SCC pp. Proceeding further the two-Judge Bench stated thus: (SCC pp. 507-508, para-4) “4......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 forever 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.” After so observing, the Court treated the said punishment to be a major penalty. In said case while interpreting clause (v) of Rule 5 of the same Regulations, the Court did not accept the reasoning of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sarwan Singh vs. State of Punjab. 10. At this juncture, reference to Punjab State vs. Ram Lubhaya would be apposite. The High Court has correctly opined as follows: (SLR p. 413, para-6) “6. Before proceeding further, it will have to be understood as to what is the effect of withholding of increments simpliciter i.e. without cumulative effect, and with cumulative effect. For example, if an employee is getting Rs. 100 at the time of imposition of penalty of withholding of increments, and the penalty is without cumulative effect for a period of two years and the annual increments were to be of Rs. 5, then in that case for two years he will continue to get Rs. 100 per month but after the expiry of two years, he will get at the time of next increment, Rs. 115, including the increment for the past two years during which period they remained withheld.” 11. 5, then in that case for two years he will continue to get Rs. 100 per month but after the expiry of two years, he will get at the time of next increment, Rs. 115, including the increment for the past two years during which period they remained withheld.” 11. In Rang Nath Rai vs. State of Bihar, 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. 12. The High Court of Delhi in Uttam Kumar vs. Delhi Jal Board 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 latter is in the compartment of major penalty. In the latter 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. 13. In our considered opinion the view expressed in the aforesaid decisions is in consonance with the sound legal principle and we approve them. 14. 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. 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. 15. In view of the aforesaid premises, it is clear as day that the perception of the courts below and the High Court is absolutely fallacious and therefore, the judgments and decrees passed by all the courts have to be annulled and we so do. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, all the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner has filed an appeal, which is still pending before the respondent authority; as such this Court should not entertain the instant writ application. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it transpires that admittedly, the enquiry report as well as second show causes Notice was not issued/served to the petitioner on the pretext that the punishment imposed upon him was a minor punishment. Now this issue is no more res integra. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision rendered in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board (Supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that withholding of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty because 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. Thus, the action of the respondents in not issuing second show-cause notice and/or serving the enquiry report is against the settled principles of law as laid. Thus, the action of the respondents in not issuing second show-cause notice and/or serving the enquiry report is against the settled principles of law as laid. At this stage, it is also pertinent to refer to the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that appeal filed by the petitioner is still pending and since stay was granted by this court, the same could not be disposed of. In this regard, I want to clarify that on one hand, there is a gross procedural irregularity and on the other hand the respondents themselves waited for nine months from the date of filing the appeal inasmuch as the petitioner has filed the appeal on 20.12.2011 and the stay granted by this court was on 26.11.2012 as such, there was enough time for the respondents to dispose of the appeal. Further, the stay order was only with respect to recovery of amount. As such, the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the respondent State has no substance and the same is rejected. In view of the settled position of law and the admitted position of the case, the impugned order/notification of punishment as contained in Memo No. 3497 (S) dated 21.06.2011 is quashed and set aside on the ground of procedural irregularity. The letter as contained in Memo No. 1535 (S) dated 05.03.2012 issued under the signature of the Respondent Deputy Secretary, whereby a deduction/recovery of Rs. 29,024/- per month for ten months has been directed from the salary of the Petitioner is also quashed and set-aside. The Disciplinary Authority will be at liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner giving reasons to differ with the report of Inquiry Officer, enclosing the enquiry report and after receiving the reply, if any, pass a fresh order of punishment. It is made clear that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant application is disposed of.