JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J. 1. Petitioner is aggrieved against an order issued by respondent No.3-the Deputy Divisional Manager, HRTC, on 06.03.2024 (Annexure P-2) imposing the penalty of stoppage of one annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect upon the petitioner. The appellate authority has also affirmed this penalty order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. Following order was passed in the matter on09.05.2025:- “Notice. Mr. Dixit Sahotra, Advocate vice Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Let the respondents come up with the instructions/reply as to whether before imposing penalty of stoppage of one annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect upon the petitioner, provisions of Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 were followed by them or not. List on 14.05.2025.” Pursuant thereto, learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record instructions dated 13.05.2025 from respondent No.3 and submitted that the said instruction be treated as the stand of the respondents as separate reply is not intended to be filed by them. The matter has been heard accordingly. 4. Respondents have given following background in their instructions prompting them to proceed against the petitioner:- ‘Sh. Surinder Kumar 4 th driver of this Unit was deputed with bus No. HP69-4992 on 19.11.2023, which was catering as Bilaspur to Shimla & back Bilaspur-Chamba up to Hamirpur. The said driver changed the bus with routine bus in the workshop without giving any defect. Next day on routine checking, said bus was inspected and during checking it has been found that there was no M.oil Top up in the said bus and consumed 11 liters moil and and whereas total capacity of M.oil in the oil sump of bus is 15 liters and top up quantity of 11 liter moil is too high, which may lead to engine seize.’ According to the respondents, in view of above, negligence in performance of duty, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 07.12.2023. Petitioner furnished his reply on 23.12.2023 inter alia stating therein that he had checked the mobile oil of the bus in question and found it to be satisfactory; Upon arriving at Bilaspur, passengers were shifted to routine bus but he did not check the bus again at Bilaspur as the bus was late and passengers were getting impatient. According to the respondents, petitioner’s reply was not found satisfactory. A memo of charges was issued to him on 05.01.2024 under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) [in short CCS(CC&A)] Rules 1965. Petitioner tendered his reply to the chargesheet on 30.01.2024 denying the charges. His reply was found unsatisfactory. He was given an opportunity of personal hearing on 29.02.2024. Petitioner’s explanation failed to satisfy respondent No.3. Accordingly, respondent No.3 held the petitioner guilty of charges and imposed upon him penalty of stoppage of one annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect under order dated 05.03.2024. The order was affirmed by the appellate authority on 10.11.2025. 5 . Under Rule 11(iv) of the CCS(CC&A) Rules, withholding increments of pay of a Government employee is a minor penalty:- “11. Penalties The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely:- Minor Penalties (i) to (iii)………………………. (iv) withholding of increments of pay.” Rule 16 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules prescribes following procedure for imposing minor penalties (relevant extract only):- “16. Penalties The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government servant, namely:- Minor Penalties (i) to (iii)………………………. (iv) withholding of increments of pay.” Rule 16 of the CCS (CC&A) Rules prescribes following procedure for imposing minor penalties (relevant extract only):- “16. PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING MINOR PENALTIES: (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (5) of rule 15, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iv) of rule 11 shall be made except after- (a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; (b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of rule 14, in every case in which the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary; (c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; (d) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary. The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the advice of the Commission to the Government servant, who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission on the advice of the Commission, to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days; and (e) recording a finding on each imputation or misconduct or misbehaviour. (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 inquiry 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. (2) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include- (i) a copy of the intimation to the Government servant of the proposal to take action against him; (ii) a copy of the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him; (iii) his representation, if any; (iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry; (v) the advice of the Commission, if any; (vi) representation, if any, of the Government servant on the advice of the Commission; (vii) the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour; and (viii) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor. …………………………...” Here it will be appropriate to refer to G.I., Dept. of Per. &Trg., O.M. No. 11012/18/85-Estt. (A), dated the 28 th October, 1985, which inter alia states that the disciplinary authority should apply its mind to all facts and circumstances and the reasons urged in the representation for holding a detailed inquiry and form an opinion whether an inquiry is necessary or not, as under:- “(i)…………. (2) …………………………..Rule 16 (1-A) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, provides for the holding of an inquiry even when a minor penalty is to be imposed in the circumstances indicated therein. In other cases, where a minor penalty is to be imposed, Rule 16 (1) ibid leaves it to the discretion of disciplinary authority to decide whether an inquiry should be held or not. The implication of this rule is that on receipt of representation of Government servant concerned on the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior communicated to him, the disciplinary authority should apply its mind to all facts and circumstances and the reasons urged in the representation for holding a detailed inquiry and form an opinion whether an inquiry is necessary or not. In case where a delinquent Government servant has asked for inspection of certain documents and cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, the disciplinary authority should naturally apply its mind more closely to the request and should not reject the request solely on the ground that in inquiry is not mandatory. In case where a delinquent Government servant has asked for inspection of certain documents and cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, the disciplinary authority should naturally apply its mind more closely to the request and should not reject the request solely on the ground that in inquiry is not mandatory. If the records indicate that, notwithstanding the points urged by the Government servant, the disciplinary authority could, after due consideration, come to the conclusion that an inquiry is not necessary, it should say so in writing indicating its reasons, instead of rejecting the request for holding inquiry summarily without any indication that it has applied its mind to the request, as such an action could be construed as denial of natural justice.” 6. Respondents had issued the chargesheet to the petitioner under Rule 16 CCS (CC&A) Rules on 05.01.2024 for imposing minor penalty. The petitioner had denied the charges levelled against him. It is not the case of the respondents that the Disciplinary Authority on considering the response of the petitioner to the memo had formed an opinion whether an inquiry in the matter was necessary or not. Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that no order either way had been passed by the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 16. Further the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is absolutely non speaking. It does not reveal any reason, does not give out any justification for imposing minor penalty upon the petitioner or as to why petitioner’s reply was found unsatisfactory. Considering that respondents did not intend to hold any inquiry against the petitioner, some reasoning for discarding the petitioner’s response should have been laid out in the order before holding him guilty of the charge levelled against him. Principles of natural justice have not been complied with by the respondents. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. 8. The impugned orders dated 06.03.2024 (Annexure P-2) &10.01.2025 (Annexure P-3) are quashed and set aside. Liberty, however, is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law. 9. The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.