V. M. SAHAI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as peon on 14. 2. 77 in Varanasi Development Authority. He was confirmed on 26. 3. 90 w. e. f. 1. 6. 79. The petitioner absented from duty from 5. 11. 90 to 30. 11. 90 on the ground that his daughter suffered fracture in her hand. The petitioner was suspended by order dated 14. 2. 91. Enquiry Officer was appointed and in departmental disciplinary proceedings, the enquiry officer was of the opinion that balance salary during suspension period be forfeited and warning be Issued to the petitioner. The report of the enquiry officer along with his recommendation was submitted to the punishing authority who issued show cause notice on 29. 6. 91. After considering the reply of the petitioner, the punishing authority dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 23. 8. 91. The petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of dismissal as well as the appellate order by means of this writ petition. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri G. K. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri AJal Kumar Dwivedi, learned standing counsel for the respondents. ( 3 ) SRI G. K. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the enquiry officer submitted a report to the respondent No. 2 that balance salary during the suspension period be forfeited and he be issued strong warning. In case the punishing authority proposed to take a different view contrary to the recommendations of enquiry officer, he ought recorded reasons for differing with the report of the enquiry officer and the reason ought to have been incorporated in the show cause notice dated 29. 6. 91 and communicated to the petitioner. The other argument of Sri G. K. Singh is that for absence of 25 days, the petitioner has been dismissed from service and the punishment awarded to him is too harsh. Sri A. K. Dwivedt learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order of dismissal as well as appellate order on the ground that the absence from duty amounted to indiscipline and the petitioner has rightly been dismissed from service and the dismissal order is not liable to be interfered with by the Court. Sri A. K. Dwivedt learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order of dismissal as well as appellate order on the ground that the absence from duty amounted to indiscipline and the petitioner has rightly been dismissed from service and the dismissal order is not liable to be interfered with by the Court. He further argued that the punishing authority could take a different view disagreeing with the recommendation of enquiry officer and no reason was required to be recorded by the punishing authority nor it was required to be communicated to the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE enquiry officer submitted his report recommending that balance salary of the petitioner during suspension period be forfeited and strong warning be given to him. The punishing authority differed with the view of the enquiry officer and decided to issue show cause notice to the petitioner as to why he be not dismissed from service. The show cause notice Issued on 29. 6. 91 has been filed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. The show cause notice does not disclose reasons to disagree with the report of the enquiry officer. The law is well-settled that in case the punishing authority took a contrary view and decided to impose a major punishment contrary to the recommendation made by the enquiry officer, then he was required to disclose reasons in the show cause notice to enable the delinquent to meet it otherwise the notice would be empty formality. The Apex Court in Ram Kfshan v. Union of India and others, JT 1995 (7)SC 43 has laid down as under : "-----The purpose of the show cause notice, in case of disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer, is to enable the delinquent to show that the disciplinary authority is persuaded not to disagree with the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer for the reasons given in the enquiry report or he may offer additional reasons in support of the finding by the inquiry officer. In that situation, unless the disciplinary authority gives specific reasons in the show cause on the basis of which the findings of the inquiry officer in that behalf is based, it would be difficult for the delinquent to satisfactorily give reasons to persuade the disciplinary authority to agree with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer. In that situation, unless the disciplinary authority gives specific reasons in the show cause on the basis of which the findings of the inquiry officer in that behalf is based, it would be difficult for the delinquent to satisfactorily give reasons to persuade the disciplinary authority to agree with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer. In the absence of any ground or reason in the show cause notice it amounts to an empty formality which would cause grave prejudice to the delinquent officer and would result in injustice to him. The mere fact that in the final order some reasons have been given to disagree with the conclusions reached by the disciplinary authority cannot cure the defect. " ( 5 ) WHERE the disciplinary authority differs from the report of the enquiry officer and proposes to reverse the findings recorded by the enquiry officer against the delinquent employee, he must record his tentative reasons in the show cause notice to enable the employee to represent his case. ( 6 ) THE Apex Court in Punjab National Bank and others v. Shri Kunf Behari Mishra, JT 1998 (5)SC 548. held as under : ". . . . . As a result thereof whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the Inquiry authority or 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. " ( 7 ) THE notice dated 29. 6. 91 Issued by the punishing authority does not satisfy the test laid down by the Apex Court. There is no whisper in the notice as to why the punishing authority proposed to disagree with enquiry officer. Since the punishing authority did not record reasons for differing with the recommendations of the enquiry officer nor any reasons were communicated to the petitioner, the impugned order of dismissal and appellate order cannot be upheld. ( 8 ) SINCE the petitioner is succeeding on the aforesaid ground, it is not necessary to consider the other argument of Sri G. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 8 ) SINCE the petitioner is succeeding on the aforesaid ground, it is not necessary to consider the other argument of Sri G. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The Impugned order of dismissal dated 23. 8. 91 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) and order dated 28. 1. 94 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) are quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service and pay his entire arrears of salary within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before respondent No. 2. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled for balance salary for the period during which he was under suspension. ( 10 ) THERE shall be no order as to costs. .