Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:49974 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14859 of 2018 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Pathak Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Kumar Shrivastava,Vishal Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Anadi Krishna Narayana,C.S.C.,Mangla Prasad Rai(Senior Adv.),Sarveshwar Lal Srivastava,U.S. Singh Visen Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. 1. Heard Sri Krishna Gautam, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Prakash Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sarveshwar Lal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By the impugned order dated 31.05.2014 passed by the disciplinary authority the petitioner has been found guilty of the charge of misconduct he was charged with. The petitioner has been dismissed from service by the impugned order. 3. The petitioner carried the impugned order in appeal. The appellate authority by the impugned order dated 04.11.2015 has rejected the appeal of the petitioner. 4. The order passed by the appellate authority was taken in revision. The revising authority by the impugned order dated 11.04.2018 has affirmed the order passed by the authorities below. 5. A chargesheet was drawn up against the petitioner on 29.04.2013 enumerating various charges depicting commission of acts of major misconduct. The acts of misconduct included permitting ticket less passengers to travel and make illegal exactions from some passengers by issuing forged tickets, impeding the conduct of inspection and cause financial loss to the Corporation in collusion with the passengers. A departmental enquiry ensued pursuant to the aforesaid chargesheet. The enquiry report dated 05.10.2013 had exonerated the petitioner of the aforesaid charges. 6. The disciplinary authority did not record tentative reasons for disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer absolving the petitioner of the charges against him. Further no reasons for such disagreement were communicated to the petitioner in the show cause notice issued to him. The disciplinary authority upon consideration of the reply of the petitioner proceeded to pass the impugned order. 7. The procedure so adopted by the disciplinary authority is no known to law. The disciplinary authority is under the obligation of law to record tentative reasons for disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer and thereafter notice the petitioner on the same. Failure to do so in the instant case vitiates the order of disciplinary authority. 8. The discussion has the advantage of authorities. 9. The Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank Limited Vs Kunj Behari Misra reported at 1998 (7) SCC 84 while dealing with the case where a disciplinary authority on failing to record its tentative reasons for disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer and did not convey the same to the delinquent official held as under:- "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 inquiry 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 inquiry 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 favorable conclusion of the inquiry 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." 10. From the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revising authority respectively are in the teeth of the law laid down in Kunj Behari Misra (supra). 11. The order passed by the disciplinary authority is unsustainable in law. The error committed by the disciplinary authority goes to the root of the matter. The appellate authority as well as the revising authority respectively fell into an error of law by failing to redeem the aforesaid illegality committed by the disciplinary authority. The aforesaid impugned orders dated 31.05.2014, 04.11.2015 and 11.04.2018 are not in consonance with law. The impugned orders dated 31.05.2014, 04.11.2015 and 11.04.2018 are liable to be set aside and are set aside. 12. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to execute the following directions: i. The disciplinary authority shall record tentative reasons of disagreement with the enquiry officer in light of the judgment rendered in Kunj Behari Misra (supra) and notice the petitioner on the same. ii. The petitioner shall tender his defence to the aforesaid notice. iii. A fresh order shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. iv.The order shall be passed after due application of mind. 13. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Pravin Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad