1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.27 of 2018 ----- Jaideo Prasad Singh, son of late Ramchandra Singh, resident of New Nagar, Dipatoli, PO Bariatu, PS Sadar, District Ranchi … Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, office at Project Building, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi 2.Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co- operative, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal house, Doranda, PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi 3.The Joint Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Co-operative, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, PO and PS Doranda, District Ranchi 4.The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi having its office at Engineers Building, Hostel No. 3, Dhurwa, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi … Respondents. CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manish Mishra, GP-V Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, AC to GP-V …...... 07 /12.02.2025: A short question which falls for consideration in this case is whether while differing with the inquiry report in the disciplinary proceeding, the disciplinary authority is bound to issue notice to the petitioner and proceed thereafter. 2. It is an admitted fact that in this case the petitioner faced departmental proceeding and an inquiry report was submitted exonerating him. The disciplinary authority had differed with the finding of the inquiry officer thereafter without recording the reasons for such disagreement, censored him and further passed an order of withholding one increment with cumulative effect, as punishment. Though censor is a minor punishment, withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment. 3. It is well settled principle of law that if the Disciplinary Authority wants to differ with the finding of the inquiry officer, he has to arrive at an independent conclusion and must record the grounds on which he is differing with the report. Once he differs he has to issue show cause notice indicating the reasons of difference, to the petitioner. 2 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra” reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 held at para 19 as under: “19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” 5. In this case admittedly the reasons of difference has not been reflected in any of the orders nor the petitioner was issued a show cause notice before inflicting the punishment upon the petitioner. 6. Considering the aforesaid admitted position, I am inclined to set-aside the orders of punishment dated 20.08.2009 and 27.02.2017 and remit the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to commence the proceeding from the stage of issuance of second show cause notice to the petitioner, if the authority wishes to do so, indicating the reasons on which the authority is differing with report of the inquiry officer. 7. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands allowed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/ AFR