ORDER J.S. Trivedi, J. - Disciplinary proceedings were taken against the petitioner while he was holding the post of Assistant Permanent Way Inspector North Eastern Railway. A charge sheet under the signature of Assistant Engineer (West). Lucknow with the designation of disciplinary authority was given to him. Annexure 1 to the writ petition is the true copy of the memorandum accompanying the charge-sheet. A detailed explanation to the charges denying the allegations was made by the petitioner. The petitioner also claimed a personal hearing. The Divisional Engineer appointed Assistant Engineer (East) Lucknow Junction as the Inquiring Officer. The Inquiring Officer submitted his report on 16th of February. 1970. A show cause notice Annexure 7 to the affidavit was then given by the Divisional Engineer proposing the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the aforesaid show cause notice. On the ground that (1) the punishing authority has not given its independent finding on each charge and the show cause notice, therefore. violates sub-clause (5) of Rule 10 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and (2) the appointing authority of the petitioner was Chief Engineer Gorakhpur and the show cause notice by the Divisional Engineer is bad on that account. The opposite party has contested the claim and has contended that the show cause notice does not violate Rule 10 of the Rules. It is further contended that the rules envisage two distinct authorities, appointing authority and the disciplinary authority and the procedure and the action unto the stage of show cause notice under the rules can be taken by the disciplinary authority His contention is that the final order of dismissal or removal only is envisaged by the appointing authority who will be the dismissing authority. Rule 6 enumerates the penalties and removal from service is described as major penalty at Item (viii). Sub-clause (2) to Rule 8 authorises the disciplinary authority to initiate proceedings against any railway servant for the imposition of any of the major penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 notwithstanding that such disciplinary authority is not competent to impose the said penalties. Rule 9 prescribes the Procedure for imposing major penalties. R. 10, sub-clause (5) (i) (a) reads as under:- "If the disciplinary authority. Rule 9 prescribes the Procedure for imposing major penalties. R. 10, sub-clause (5) (i) (a) reads as under:- "If the disciplinary authority. having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of sub-rule (1) of R. 6 should be imposed on the railway servant. it shall- (a) furnish to the railway servant a copy of the report of the inauiry held by it and its findings on each article of charge, or where the inquiry has been held by an inquiry authority, appointed by it, a copy of the report of such authority and a statement of its findings on each article of charge together with brief reasons for its disagreement, if any. with the findings of the inauiry authority." The show cause notice Annexure 7 given to the petitioner is as under :- "Shri Ram Dularey. A. P. W. I/Aishbagh. son of Shri Jagdeo is informed that the Officer appointed to enauire into article of charges framed against him has submitted his report. A copy of the report of the enquiry officer is enclosed." 2. On a careful consideration of the report and in particular of the conclusion reached in respect of the articles of charges framed against Shri Ram Dularey. A P. W. I./Aishbagh. son of Shri Jagdeo. the undersigned agrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and holds that the article of charges is proved. The undersigned has. therefore, provisionally come to the conclusion that Shri Ram Dularey. A. P. W. I./Aishbagh, son of Shri Jagdeo is not a fit person to be retained in service and that he should be removed from service of A. P. W. I. Shri Ram Dularey. A. P. W. I. son of Shri Jagdeo is hereby given an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken any representation which he may make in that connection will be considered by the undersigned. Such representation if any should be made in writing which must be based only on the evidence adduced during the enquiry and submitted so as to reach the undersigned not later than ............." The show cause notice is signed by Sri M. S. A. Rao. Divisional Engineer. N. E. Railway, Lucknow as Disciplinary Authority. 3. Such representation if any should be made in writing which must be based only on the evidence adduced during the enquiry and submitted so as to reach the undersigned not later than ............." The show cause notice is signed by Sri M. S. A. Rao. Divisional Engineer. N. E. Railway, Lucknow as Disciplinary Authority. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the show cause notice is bad because it lacks any statement of the findings of the Disciplinary Authority. According to him it was obligatory on the Disciplinary Authority to give its own independent finding and the expression that he agrees with the finding of the Inquiring Officer is not sufficient compliance of Rule 10 (5) (i) fa). Before October, 1968 the railway employees were governed by the Discipline and Appeal Rules for Railway Servants and the language of Rule 10 was similar to para. 1713 of those rules. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner in support of its contention on Lajpat Rai Malhotra v. Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer Northern Railway, 1970 All LJ 1095. where it was laid down that Rule 1713 is mandatory and contains very salutary principle and is not meant to be mere ceremony. The facts of that case, however, were that the punishing authority did not at all apply its mind to the matter and dittoed the finding of the enquiry committee. There was no indication even in the show cause notice issued in that case that the authority issuing the show cause notice had agreed with the finding of the Inquiring Officer. The facts of that case are. therefore, distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Union of India v. Sashi Bhushan Biswas, AIR 1970 Cal 545 . was also a case where the findings of the Inquiring Officer were not examined by the punishing authority and in that context it was laid down that:- "Rule 1713 is mandatory. It goes beyond the requirements of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution and requires the punishing authority to apply his mind to the materials on the record over again even where he may agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. It goes beyond the requirements of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution and requires the punishing authority to apply his mind to the materials on the record over again even where he may agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Where the punishing authority does not examine the findings of the Inquiry Officer upon which the employee was found guilty and does not record his own findings separately on the charges, his order gets vitiated for non-compliance with R. 1713." There can be no dispute that the Disciplinary Authority before issuing a show cause notice has to apply its mind to the findings of the Inquiring Officer. In Union of India v. K. Rajappa Menon, AIR 1970 SC 748 . while considering the language of Rule 1713 it was laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that:- "Rule 1713 does not lay down any particular form or manner in which the disciplinary authority should record its finding on each charge. All that the Rule requires is that the record of the enquiry should be considered and the disciplinary authority should proceed to give its findings on each charge. This does not and cannot mean that it is obligatory on the disciplinary authority to discuss the evidence and the facts and circumstances established at the departmental enquiry in details and write as if it were an order or a judgment of a judicial tribunal. Where the disciplinary authority after giving consideration to the record of the proceedings of the departmental inquiry agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer that all the charges mentioned in the charge sheet had been established. it meant that he was affirming the findings on each charge and that fulfils the requirement of the Rules. The Rule after all has to be read no in a pedantic manner but in a practical and reasonable way." The relevant portion in the show cause notice which was before their Lordships of the Supreme Court was in these words :- "I agree with the findings of the Inquiring Officer that all the charges mentioned in the charge-sheet had been established." Under rule 10 the reasons are necessary if the disciplinary authority agrees with the Inquiring Authority a statement to the effect that it agrees within the findings of the Inquiry Authority is sufficient compliance of rule 10 (5) (a). The contention of the petitioner, therefore, that the show cause notice was bad for non compliance of rule 10 (5) (a) has no force. 4. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the show cause notice was not given by a competent to dismiss or remove the petitioner has force. Schedule II to the Rules describes the various authorities competent to take disciplinary action in respect of non-gazetted staff. Under serial Nos. 7. 8 and 9 which deal with the removal of service, compulsory retirement and dismissal from service, the authority. Mr. Banerji, learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that while the appointing be competent to pass an order of removal. the notice to show cause could be issued by the disciplinary authority.I am unable to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties. The purpose of the show cause notice is that the punishing authority after examining the findings of the Inquiring Officer has to decide the gravity of the charge and the quantum of the punishment. The quantum of punishment on the facts and findings of each case has to depend on the satisfaction and opinion of the punishing defined in the rules is entitled to institute disciplinary proceeding that is competent to impose the punishment. In the instant case Annexure 10 to the affidavit is the copy of the order of appointment, and Chief Engineer Gorakhpur happens to be the appointing authority. The Divisional Engineer was therefore not competent and had no jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice against the petitioner. 5. The order is not challenged on any other ground. 6. For the reasons given above this writ petition has to be allowed and is accordingly allowed with costs. The show cause notice dated 27th April. 1970 Annexure 7 to the affidavit is quashed.