This writ application has been filed by an employee challenging the order dated 14.8.92 issued by the Managing Director, Statfed, imposing upon the petitioner the punishment of withholding 3 increments with permanent effect on future increments. An appeal was filed and that appeal was also rejected by the authority on 14.8.92. The brief facts are as follows. 2. The petitioner was working as Sub Accountant in the Head Office of Statfed at Guwahati. On 31.3.92 the petitioner was placed under suspension pending drawal of departmental proceeding by the Managing Director. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to show cause as to why major penalty would not be inflicted upon the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence and after holding the enquiry the Inquiry Officer submitted his report before the disciplinary authority holding the petitioner not guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer and held that the charges have been proved and imposed the punishment of withholding 3 increments with permanent effect on future increments. It was further stated that the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefits other than subsistence allowance paid to him during the period of suspension. There was an appeal and that appeal was also rejected. Hence, this writ petition. 3. I have heard Mr. KN Choudhury, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri PC Deka, learned Advocate for the respondents. Sri Choudhury draws my attention to the finding of the disciplinary authority which is at Annexure D to the writ application. The relevant portion of that finding is quoted below: “Observation of the Inquiry Officer that the production of rent receipt is not obligatory and hence the delinquent official is not liable is not acceptable to me. Besides considering the facts and circumstances of the case there is reasonable ground to believe that the delinquent official himself tampered with the rent receipts of the hotels for his wrongful gain and thereby causing loss to the Federation. Although the amount involved is very little and no excess amount could be drawn in this case the offence of attempt to tamper document is of serious nature.” 4. There is no charge of tampering rent receipts as found by the disciplinary authority. So no finding could have been arrived at with regard to this without the petitioner being charged of that offence. There is no charge of tampering rent receipts as found by the disciplinary authority. So no finding could have been arrived at with regard to this without the petitioner being charged of that offence. Further, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The principle of natural justice demands that a show cause notice must be issued to the petitioner before doing so. That was not done. For that law one can have a look at AIR 1996 SC 255 (Ram Kishan vs. Union of India & others) wherein paragraph 10 it has been pointed out that when the disciplinary authority is inclined to disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer notice of it must be given to the employee, so that the employee can show that there is no reasonable basis to disagree with sach findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer. He may also offer additional reasons in support of the finding of the Enquiry Officer. 5. In this particular case as the disciplinary authority decided to disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, and as no show cause notice was issued the order impugned is invalid on that count. Further, while disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer no cogent reason as required by law was given. 6. In that view of the matter, the order of the disciplinary authority dated 14.8.92 (Annexure D) and the appellate order shall stand quashed and the petitioner shall be entitled to all the benefits of service. He also shall be entitled to his due salary during the period of suspension. The authority shall pass appropriate order giving relief to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order and pay to him the arrear salary which may be due to him. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner may obtain the certified copy of this order and may produce the same before the authority to do the needful in terms of the order. No costs.