ORDER : 1. Assailing the legality, validity and correctness of the order of the Collector dated 08.08.2016, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, by which, the Collector, Kabirdham has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein while affirming the order of the Tahsildar dated 17.03.2016, by which, she has been inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short the Rules of 1966). 2. The petitioner was subjected with a notice dated 17.12.2015 by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bodla along-with the charge sheet vide Annexure P-4, to which, the petitioner replied by filing reply Annexure P-5 that the alleged misconduct is not made out and, as such, the charges deserve to be dropped against her. Thereafter, the learned Tahsildar, Bodla by order dated 17.03.2016 finding that the reply to the charge sheet filed by the petitioner is not satisfactory proceeded to impose a penalty by stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect under Rule 10(v) of the Rules of 1966. 3. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Collector, Kabirdham under Section 23 of the Rules of 1966 questioning the order of the Tahsildar and ultimately, by the impugned order, the Collector, Kabirdham has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against which this writ petition has been preferred. 4. Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty under Rule 10(v) of the Rules of 1966, therefore, it could not have been imposed without holding departmental enquiry under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966 and he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504 and Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 433. 5. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State counsel would support the impugned order and submits that considering the misconduct found proved by the Tahsildar, the petitioner has rightly been imposed with a penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect, which is in accordance with law and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. 5. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned State counsel would support the impugned order and submits that considering the misconduct found proved by the Tahsildar, the petitioner has rightly been imposed with a penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect, which is in accordance with law and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was served with charge sheet by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bodla by memo dated 17.12.2015 vide Annexure P-4, against which, she filed reply and finding her reply unsatisfactory, the Tahsildar by order dated 17.03.2016 imposed a penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect, but admittedly the disciplinary proceeding under Rule 14/16 of the Rules of 1966 has not been initiated and conducted. 8. At this stage, the provisions contained in Rule 16 (1-A) of the Rules of 1966 deserves to be noticed, which provides for imposing minor penalties: “(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 with-hold increments of pay or stagnation allowance and such with-holding of increments or stagnation allowance is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government servant or to with-hold increments of pay or stagnation allowance for a period exceeding three years or to with-hold increments of pay or stagnation allowance with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rule (3) or (23) of Rule 14, before making any order imposing on the Government servant any such penalty.” 9. A careful perusal of the aforesaid Rule would show that where the disciplinary authority proposes to with-hold increments of pay or stagnation allowance with cumulative effect for any period, an inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rule (3) to (23) of Rule 14, before making any order imposing on the Government servant any such penalty. 10. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Rule 10(iv) & Rule 10(v) of the Rules of 1966: “10. 10. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Rule 10(iv) & Rule 10(v) of the Rules of 1966: “10. Penalties - The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely: Minor penalties: (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) xxx xxx xxx (iii) xxx xxx xxx (iv) withholding of increments or stagnation allowance: 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 servant will earn increments of pay or the stagnation allowance, as the case may be, 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 or stagnation allowance. Note: The expression ‘reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay’ shall also include reduction of pay from the stage of pay drawn by a Government servant on account of stagnation allowance, if any.” 11. A careful perusal of Rule 10(iv) would show that with-holding of increments or stagnation allowance is a minor penalty; whereas reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions under Rule 10(v) of the Rules of 1966 would be major penalty. 12. This issue came up before the Supreme Court in the matter of Kulwant Singh Gill (supra) [Three Judges Bench] in which, it has been held that stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty under Rule 5(v) of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970, which is pari materia to Rule 10(v) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 and their Lordships pertinently held in paragraph 4 as under: “4. Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5(iv). But sub-rule (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. The impugned order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect whether would fall within the meaning of Rule 5(v)? If it so fails 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 pealed 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 and Others, I.L.R. (1985) 2 P&H 193, 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 withhold 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, of earning future increments in the time scale of pay even permanently with expressly stating so. This preposterous consequences 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.” 13. 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.” 13. The aforesaid principles of law laid down in Kulwant Singh Gill (supra) has further been followed with approval in Mohinder Singh (supra) and in the matter of Punjab State Electricity Board v. Raj Kumar Goel, (2014) 15 SCC 748 in which, it has been clearly held that the withholding of increments without cumulative effect is in the realm of minor penalty wherein increment is to be released after specified period and withholding of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty since there is permanent postponement of increment. 14. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down in Kulwant Singh Gill (supra) [Three Judges Bench], Mohinder Singh (supra) and Raj Kumar Goel (supra) and in light of Rule 16(1-A) of the Rules of 1966, it is quite vivid that before directing to with-hold increments of pay or stagnation allowance with cumulative effect for any period, the disciplinary authority is obliged to hold inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rule (3) to (23) of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966 and further Rule 10(v) of the Rules of 1966 is pari materia to Rule 5(v) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 and, as such, the imposition of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect would be a major penalty and it could not be awarded without conducting regular departmental enquiry as has been specified in Rule 14 of the Rules of 1966, which provides for procedure for departmental enquiry. 15. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.08.2016 passed by the Collector as well as the order of the Tahsildar dated 17.03.2016 both are hereby quashed. 16. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No order as to costs.