ASHOK BHAN J. ( 1 ) POINT which falls for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the principles of natural justice have to be read into Rule 11-A of the Karnataka civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, the Rules') as a result thereof whenever the Disciplinary authority disagrees with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Authority on any article of charges, then, before it records its findings has to give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it and defend his case. ( 2 ) THE point arises on the following facts. Appellant was working as a driver in the Karnataka Legislature secretariat. He was in charge of Car No. KAG 444. The car driven by him met with an accident with an autorickshaw on 4-4-1986 at about 12. 00 noon near Legislators' Home. Disciplinary Authority initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant alleging misconduct on account of rash and negligent driving in a drunken condition after taking liquor. A charge memo was served on the appellant. It contained two charges i. e. , driving of the car bearing No. KAG 444 in a rash and negligent manner and driving the car in a drunken condition. Disciplinary authority directed the appellant to offer his explanation by way of defence. Delinquent by his reply dated 7-7-1987 filed his written statement denying all the charges alleged in the charge memo. Disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the appellant, appointed Sri Yakub Sherif, Under - Secretary working in the Legislators' home as the Enquiry Officer to inquire into the allegations made in the charge memo dated 2044987. Before the Inquiry Officer, the respondents had examined three witnesses and the delinquent had examined two witnesses. The management had marked nearly ten documents in the proceedings. ( 3 ) INQUIRY Officer after holding the enquiry in accordance with law and observing the principles of natural justice submitted his report and the findings thereon along with the records of the proceedings to the disciplinary Authority. Inquiry officer was of the view that the appellant was guilty of the first charge namely, driving of the vehicle bearing No. KAG 444 in a rash and negligent manner on 4-4-1986. Inquiry Officer found the appellant not guilty of the second charge i. e. , driving of the vehicle in a drunken condition. Inquiry officer was of the view that the appellant was guilty of the first charge namely, driving of the vehicle bearing No. KAG 444 in a rash and negligent manner on 4-4-1986. Inquiry Officer found the appellant not guilty of the second charge i. e. , driving of the vehicle in a drunken condition. ( 4 ) AFTER receipt of the report and the findings of the Inquiry Officer, disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry officer insofar as the second charge is concerned and proceeded to give its own finding on the said charge. Disciplinary Authority after coming to the conclusion that even the second charge has proved against the appellant proceeded to impose a major penalty as provided under Rule 8 of the Rules by imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement from service by its order dated 4-11-1988. Disciplinary Authority after disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer on the second charge did not issue notice to the delinquent officer to defend himself or record its' reasons for the same. Aggrieved by the order dated 4-11-1988, appellant filed an appeal as provided under the rules which came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority on 29-12-1988. ( 5 ) APPELLANT aggrieved by the order dated 4-11-1988 of the Disciplinary authority and the order dated 29-12-1988 passed by the Appellate authority filed Writ Petition No. 7408 of 1989 which was dismissed by the impugned order which has been challenged before us in this appeal. ( 6 ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge, three contentions were raised on behalf of the appellant. Firstly, that the evidence of the Inquiry Officer were perverse as it contained no reasons in support of the conclusions arrived by it regarding negligent driving; secondly non-application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority while imposing major punishment and thirdly, that when the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the finding of the Inquiry Officer, a notice had to be given to the delinquent before holding the delinquent guilty of the second charge as well. Contention regarding disproportionality of the punishment imposed was also raised. ( 7 ) LEARNED Single Judge on Point No. 1 held that the Inquiry Officer had discussed the evidence present on record and there was no perversity about the same. Contention regarding disproportionality of the punishment imposed was also raised. ( 7 ) LEARNED Single Judge on Point No. 1 held that the Inquiry Officer had discussed the evidence present on record and there was no perversity about the same. Regarding applicability of the mind by the Disciplinary authority, it was held that the Disciplinary Authority had passed the order after due application of mind. Third contention regarding providing of an opportunity by the Disciplinary Authority if it disagreed with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer, learned Single Judge held that it was not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to provide fresh opportunity to the delinquent official. For coming to this conclusion, learned Single Judge relied upon a judgment of - the Supreme Court in State Bank of India, Bhopal v S. S. Koshal. As the Disciplinary authority had held that the appellant was found driving the vehicle at 12. 00 noon in a drunken condition which was highly improper, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was not excessive or disproportionate. ( 8 ) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard. ( 9 ) AT the outset, Counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice that by a subsequent three Member Bench judgment of the Supreme court in Punjab National Bank and Others v Kunj Behari Misra and another, the Supreme Court has OVERRULED its earlier decision in S. S. Koshal's case, supra, holding that the principles of natural justice require the Disciplinary Authority to issue a fresh notice if it disagrees with the report of the Inquiry Officer on any article of charge and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it and record its findings on the disagreed charges. ( 10 ) RULE 11-A of the Rules reads as under :"the Disciplinary Authority if it is not itself the Inquiry Authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring Authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further enquiry according to the provisions of Rule 11 as far as may be. 2. The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Authority on any article of charge record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. 3. 2. The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Authority on any article of charge record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. 3. If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings, on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that one or more of the penalties specified in Rule 8 should be imposed on the government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 12, make an order imposing such penalty : provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the disciplinary Authority to the Commission for its advice on the penalties proposed to be imposed on the Government servant and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing any penalty on the Government servant". ( 11 ) THIS rule is in pan materia with Regulation 7 of the Punjab national Bank Officers' Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 which was under consideration before Supreme Court in K. B. Misra's case, supra. A reading of Rule 11-A shows that on furnishing a charge-sheet full opportunity is required to be given to the delinquent officer. Disciplinary Authority either can itself conduct an enquiry or choose to appoint an officer to enquire into the allegation of misconduct. On conclusion of the proceedings in the manner provided under the rules, the Enquiry Authority has to forward its report to the Disciplinary authority along with all the relevant records. Under sub-rule (3) of rule 11-A, when the Disciplinary Authority agrees with the Inquiry officer on all or any of the'charges proved against the delinquent officer, then it can proceed to impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 8 of the Rules. ( 12 ) THE controversy in the present case however relates to Rule 1 l-A (2 ). Where the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the finding of the Enquiry Authority is required to record its own reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. Question is whether the Disciplinary authority is required to give a fresh notice to the delinquent officer for hearing in case it disagrees with the Enquiry. Question is whether the Disciplinary authority is required to give a fresh notice to the delinquent officer for hearing in case it disagrees with the Enquiry. Authority on all or any of the charges. In S. S. Koshal's case, supra, the Supreme Court had held that Disciplinary Authority was not required to give a fresh opportunity to the delinquent officer because no such fresh opportunity was contem- plated by the regulations nor could such a requirement be deduced from the principles of natural justice. It was held that the report of the Enquiry officer was not binding upon the Disciplinary Authority and that it was open to the Disciplinary Authority to come to its own conclusion on the charges framed. The Supreme Court in its subsequent judgment in K. B. Misra's case, supra, OVERRULED the opinion expressed in S. S. Koshal's case, supra, and held:"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 favourable 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". ( 13 ) REGULATION 7 (2) which was under consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court is in port materia with Rule 11-A which is under consideration before us. ( 13 ) REGULATION 7 (2) which was under consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court is in port materia with Rule 11-A which is under consideration before us. It has been held that principles of natural justice have to be read into this rule as a result thereof whenever a disciplinary Authority disagrees with the Enquiry Authority on any article of charges, then, before it records its findings on such charge / s, it shall record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and to provide the delinquent officer with an opportunity to represent before it. ( 14 ) RESPECTFULLY following the view expressed by the Supreme Court in K. B. Misra's case, supra, we accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Single Judge, Disciplinary Authority dated 4-11-1988 and the subsequent order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 29-12-1988. The order of the Single Judge as regards the perversity or otherwise of the report of the Inquiry Officer is upheld. The case is remanded to the disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity to the appellant in accordance with law in the light of the observation made by the Supreme Court in K,b. Misra's case, supra, and the present order. The appeal is accepted to the extent indicated above with no order as to costs. --- *** --- .