JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The grievance of the petitioner in short is that he was appointed in the respondent-Company in the year 1963 and. has been discharging his duties as a Senior Supervisor Wire Standing Shop. On 15.10.1990, he was served with a charge sheet by the Company on the allegation that he was found guilty of his lapse in the manufacture of the Zebra-ACSR Conductors. An enquiry officer was appointed by the respondent Company. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet denying the allegations. After conducting enquiry against the petitioner, the said Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Competent Authority whereby the petitioner stood exonerated of the charge vide enquiry report dated 10.11.1992. The Competent Authority re-examined the matter and found that the petitioner was guilty of his lapse and imposed punishment of stoppage of two grade increments without cumulative effect upon the petitioner vide its order dated 9.1.1993 thereby reversing the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 2. It has been further contended by the petitioner that before passing the Order dated 9.1.1993, the copy of the enquiry report was not given to the petitioner as a result of which, he was deprived of the opportunity to make representation to the Respondent-Company. 3. The said enquiry report was made available to the petitioner in the last week of Jan. 1993. 4. Being aggrieved from the Order dated 9.1.1993 of the competent authority by which two grade increments of the petitioner were withheld, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition on the grounds inter alia that : a) the Enquiry Officer has recorded a finding that no allegations were proved against the petitioner. (b) In view of disagreement between the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner should have been given Notice and thereafter opportunity of hearing; (c) the copy of Enquiry Officer's report was not supplied to him; (d) that the impugned Order has been passed in contravention of law laid down by this court and the Apex Court; (e) that the impugned Order is a non-speaking Order and suffers from the vice of malice and being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. 5. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent while controverting the above grounds of the petitioner has stated that it is not the case that the petitioner has been singled out for hostile discrimination. Employees of the Respondent-Company who were equally involved in the process of manufacture of the Zebra-ACSR conductors have been awarded similar punishment. This fact is borne out from the reply to the writ petition at ground "(f)". Hence it is a case of collective negligence in the discharge of duties entrusted to the petitioner and other employees by the company. Prima facie I am of the opinion that no interference is called for by this court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to him and the notice of disagreement to the Enquiry Officer's report by the Competent Authority was also not provided to the petitioner. Hence the principles of natural justice has been violated, Since the impugned order which has been passed by the competent authority is a well reasoned order I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel or the. petitioner and the same is hereby rejected. 7. I am further of the opinion that it is not necessary that the Disciplinary Authority must concur with the findings of the Enquiry Officer as a rule where a departmental enquiry has been initiated against a delinquent employee and in the event of disagreement between the two, it is not necessary that the benefit of doubt should be given to the delinquent, since it is always open to the Disciplinary Authority in appropriate cases to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer if the evidence on the record so warrants to do so. In this case, the Disciplinary Authority has passed a reasoned order recording it's dissent against the findings of Enquiry Officer and the same is not open to challenge before this Court. 8. My observations are fortified by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar reported in 1993 (4) SCC 727 : (1994 Lab IC 762) . 8. My observations are fortified by the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar reported in 1993 (4) SCC 727 : (1994 Lab IC 762) . The Apex Court has observed in the said judgment that the rule regarding non-supply of the copy of enquiry report or other material which may be relevant for consideration by the employer either for terminating services of the employee or for imposing lesser punishment, the theory of reasonable opportunity on the principle of violation of natural justice would not be applied as a matter of course in each and every case. Whether, or not, on account of non-supply of the copy of the enquiry report, any prejudice is caused to the employee has to be considered keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case and no universal rule can be applied in this regard. I am in full agreement with the observation; of the Apex Court in this regard. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing, has placed reliance on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Banarsi Lai v. Union of India reported in 1984 (2) SLR 413 : (1984 Lab IC 1409) , wherein it has been held that dismissal of a Government servant from service is a very serious matter and such a drastic consequence cannot in fairness visit a Government servant without the punishing authority giving him a hearing. The interest of justice requires that where the Disciplinary Authority does not accept the report of Enquiry Officer exonerating a Government servant from the levelled charge, it should record his provisional conclusion and issue a notice to the concerned public servant asking him to how cause why the proposed punishment be not imposed on him. In my view, the ratio of the decision is not attracted to this case for the reason that this is not a case where the extreme penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed on the delinquent but rather a minor penalty of stoppage of two grade increments without cumulative effect has been imposed not only on the petitioner but also on other employees of the company who were found equally liable for the charge as that of the petitioner. 9. 9. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve lo succeed. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is consequentially dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******