ORDER : – Petitioner while serving on the post of AG-3 has been visited with the penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect and recovery of Rs. 13,248/- by the impugned order dated 10-5-2012 (Annexure P/1). The appeal arising therefrom has been dismissed vide order dated 20-5-2013 and review has also been dismissed vide order dated 12-5-2017. The orders dated 20-5-2013 and 12-5-2017 are filed as Annexure P/2. 2. Shri D. P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner while taking exception to the impugned orders inter alia has made following submissions : (i) Though the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 9-11-2011 purportedly under Rule 16 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the “1966 Rules”), however regular enquiry ought to have been held as petitioner has denied the charges. That was not done. Therefore, the impugned penalty is bad in law. (ii) The Appellate Authority has not considered the grounds raised in the appeal, though under Rule 23 of 1966 Rules the Appellate Authority ought to have considered each and every ground raised. Failure in that behalf has polluted the appellate order as well. (iii) The Appellate Authority did not apply its mind to consider review petition in right perspective. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in O. K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India, (2001) 9 SCC 180 and order of this Court passed in Writ Appeal No. 369/2017, Dr. Arun Dubey vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others decided on 28-11-2017. 3. Per Contra, Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the show cause notice has been issued under Rule 16 of 1966 Rules and the petitioner was afforded opportunity to reply to the same as contemplated under Rule 16. The allegations made against the petitioner in the show cause notice were that of dereliction of duty, indiscipline and avoiding to obey the orders of the superior authority. Upon receipt of reply, the disciplinary authority was satisfied that there was no requirement of regular enquiry under sub-rules (i) to (xxiii) of Rule 14 of 1966 Rules. Upon consideration of the reply the impugned penalty has been imposed. Upon receipt of reply, the disciplinary authority was satisfied that there was no requirement of regular enquiry under sub-rules (i) to (xxiii) of Rule 14 of 1966 Rules. Upon consideration of the reply the impugned penalty has been imposed. Referring to the memo of appeal (Annexure P/6) learned counsel for the respondents submits that no grounds have been raised in the appeal requiring decision on merits; instead, a sympathetic consideration was requested. Therefore, no illegality can be attached to the impugned appellate order. Likewise, the order rejecting the review application is not open for challenge. Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 383/2022, Smt. Pratibha Mishra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others decided on 15-7-2022, wherein the judgment in O. K. Bharadwaj (supra) has been taken into consideration. He relies upon the relevant paras 3.4(a) and 3.4(b) of the said judgment quoted below : “3.4 (a) The decision of O. K. Bharadwaj vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180 is cited very often by the members of the Bar as the last sword in support of the contention that even if charge-sheet is for minor punishment, if the delinquent employee denies the charges which are factual in nature, then it is incumbent upon disciplinary authority to conduct full-fledged enquiry under Rule 14 of the 1966 Rules failing which the order of punishment is vitiated in law. 3.4 (b) The aforesaid assumption in the considered opinion of this Court is fallacious. The decision of O. K. Bharadwaj (S) was a case arising out of a judgment of Delhi High Court where the High Court while dismissing the petition of the employee held that since withholding of increments of pay with cumulative effect was a minor penalty under the relevant rules the need for full-fledged enquiry gets obviated. The Apex Court in O. K. Bharadwaj (S) while upturning the decision of Delhi High Court held otherwise. The crucial aspect which often misses the attention of members of the Bar, while relying upon O. K. Bharadwaj (S) is that the said case related to penalty of withholding of increment with cumulative effect. The Apex Court in O. K. Bharadwaj (S) while upturning the decision of Delhi High Court held otherwise. The crucial aspect which often misses the attention of members of the Bar, while relying upon O. K. Bharadwaj (S) is that the said case related to penalty of withholding of increment with cumulative effect. It is further settled law in service jurisprudence as per the decision of Apex Court in Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504 that though the penalty of withholding of increment whether cumulative or non-cumulative is categorized is minor punishment in the service rules but whenever stoppage of increment is imposed cumulatively, it causes permanent dent/depreciation in the salary of the delinquent employee which further adversely affects pensionary benefits for all times to come. While on the other hand, if withholding of increments is non-cumulatively then same is restored to delinquent employee after expiry of the period of withholding causing no adverse affect upon salary/pensionary benefits. Keeping this clear distinction between the two kinds of said penalties, the Apex Court in O. K. Bharadwaj (S) held so, since withholding of increments with cumulative effect amounts to reduction to a lower stage in time scale which is one of the major penalties provided in Rule 10(v) of the 1966 Rules. 3.4 (c) In view of the above, the preposition of law laid down in O. K. Bharadwaj (S) does not apply in a case where withholding of increments is non-cumulatively. 3.4 (d) Since the factual matrix attending the instant case reveals the penalty order of withholding of one increment non-cumulatively, the decision of O. K. Bharadwaj (supra) is inapplicable.” 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court is in agreement with the submissions advanced by Shri Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents. This Court has carefully perused the show cause notice dated 9-11-2011 (Annexure P/4). The allegations against the petitioner were not of such grave nature either to involve moral turpitude or misconduct of the nature of embezzlement/misappropriation of public funds, forgery or fraud or destroying official documents or manipulation causing loss to the respondents which require factual adjudication based on oral or documentary evidence warranting regular enquiry. 5. The allegations against the petitioner were not of such grave nature either to involve moral turpitude or misconduct of the nature of embezzlement/misappropriation of public funds, forgery or fraud or destroying official documents or manipulation causing loss to the respondents which require factual adjudication based on oral or documentary evidence warranting regular enquiry. 5. It may be observed that the disciplinary authority upon due consideration of the nature of charges and reply submitted thereto records its satisfaction to decide if regular departmental enquiry is warranted in the given facts and circumstances, in exercise of its power under Rule 16 of 1966 Rules. The satisfaction so recorded is in fact in the realm of subjective satisfaction and this by itself is not open for judicial review, unless of course the satisfaction so recorded is on extraneous consideration or could be construed to suffer from perversity of approach. That is not the case in hand. 6. In the aforesaid backdrop of legal position, this Court is unable to countenance the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the moment delinquent denies the charges, a regular enquiry under sub-rules (i) to (xxiii) of Rule 14 of 1966 Rules is imperative. This Court is in agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Pratibha Mishra (supra). 7. Consequently, writ petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.