MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.1.2001 by which the petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect in the in disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958 (for short the Rules of 1958'). The petitioner also challenged the order dated 25.9.2001 by which his appeal was dismissed. Although initially learned Counsel for the petitioner made arguments assailing validity of the aforesaid this order on merits, but ultimately he confined his argument as to the implementation and effect the order of penalty in terms of Rule 17 (aa) of the Rules of 1958 as per the clarification issued by the State Government in its Department of Personnel vide circular No. F. 3(6) Pers/A -1/64 pt. II, Jaipur dated 28.6.2003.
(2.) SHRI Ashok Gaur, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that order of penalty against the petitioner was issued on 25.1.2001 whereas his next increment was due on 1.9.2001. Effect of penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect in the manner it has been implemented by the respondents is that his pension has been calculated without adding the last increment. In the result, this order of penalty though outwardly categorised as penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect, in effect, would be a penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect because the petitioner has retired from service on 30.9.2001 and is no longer in service to regain the withhold one grade increment but on that basis, his pension would always remain affected. It is in order to take care of such a situation that the Department of Personnel, issued circular No. P.9(2)(1) Personnel/A -3/2002 dated 28.6.2003 taking into consideration the intention of the Rule 17(aa) of Rules of 1958. Shri Dharmendra Pareek learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that penalty which was actually imposed upon the petitioner was of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect. Such penalty cannot be described as the penalty of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect. Learned Counsel submitted that interpretation of Rule 17(aa) cannot be challenged to allow the restoration of one grade increment to the pay at the time of his retirement and on that basis, give him such benefit, which otherwise was intended to be taken away from him as a result of order of penalty.
(3.) RULE 17 of the Rules of 195 provides for the procedure to impose the minor penalties.;