Judgment :- Petitioner prays for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the impugned order dated 17.05.1996 to quash the same. 2. The following facts are sufficient for the disposal of the writ petition: Petitioner was originally working as Assistant Law Officer. Subsequently, there was an advertisement for the post of Law Officer by direct recruitment. He applied for the said post and he was selected and appointed as Law Officer and he joined the second respondent's Office on 22.07.1991. 3. On 01.09.1992, he was issued a Memorandum of Charges containing five charges calling for his explanation for certain alleged irregularities in the matter of submission of Travelling Allowance claims during 1988 to 1990. He submitted a detailed explanation. Enquiry commenced on 09.02.1994 and concluded on 18.03.1994. By letter dated 11.08.1985, the petitioner was imposed with penalty of reduction in rank by reverting him to the post of Assistant Law Officer for a period of two years. As no enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner to enable him to represent to the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.12282 of 1995 seeking to quash the penalty order. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the petitioner was furnished a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report and hence, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed further. 4. The petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer's report had completely exonerated the petitioner of all the charges taking into consideration the available evidence let in at the enquiry. He would further state that the Enquiry Officer has given very detailed reasons for his conclusion, which cannot be found fault with by the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a detailed representation on the Enquiry report. Once again, the Disciplinary Authority by the impugned order dated 17.05.1996, passed an order imposing the very same penalty of reduction in rank to the post of Assistant Law Officer for a period of two years. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the following three points while questioning the impugned order: (1) The petitioner was recruited directly as a Law Officer and therefore, he cannot be reduced to a post/rank in which he has not served earlier. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the following three points while questioning the impugned order: (1) The petitioner was recruited directly as a Law Officer and therefore, he cannot be reduced to a post/rank in which he has not served earlier. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in HUSSAIN SASANSAHEB KALADGI ..vs..STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ( AIR 1987 SC 1627 ). (2) The Disciplinary Authority should have recorded their reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and they should have called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the Disciplinary Authority should not proceed further on the basis of the reasons for disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's Report. Learned counsel contends that when no such opportunity was ever given to the petitioner, on that ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In this context, the learned counsel relies on the Notification issued by the National Airports Authority. Clause 29(2) reads as follows:- "The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring 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". In the Rules applicable to Central Government in CCS (CCA Rules) also, there is a similar provision in Rule 15(2). Learned counsel also relies on Government of India's Instructions on Rule 15(2) in Office Memorandum No. 11012/2/22/94 Establishment(A) dated 27th November 1995, wherein the issue as to whether it was necessary to indicate the reasons for such disagreement by the Disciplinary Authority to the delinquent was considered in consultation with the Ministry of Law and it was decided that where the Enquiring Authority holds a charge as not proved and the Disciplinary Authority takes a contrary view, the reasons for such disagreement in brief must be communicated to the Charged Officer along with the report of Enquiry Officer, so that the Charged Officer can make an effective representation. (3) The Disciplinary Authority had found the petitioner guilty on the basis of no evidence at all. Therefore, the charges cannot be sustained. 6. I heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned counsel for the second respondent. (3) The Disciplinary Authority had found the petitioner guilty on the basis of no evidence at all. Therefore, the charges cannot be sustained. 6. I heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned counsel for the second respondent. Learned counsel is unable to point out as regards the second ground, namely, the failure on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to communicate the reasons for disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's report, any decision or rule position to support the view that there is no need to communicate the same. On the other hand, the issue is directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India ..vs.. K.P.Narayan Kutty (2003 SCC (Labour and Services) 185). The Supreme Court after considering a similar provision as in Regulation 29(2) of the National Airports Authority, held that even if the Rules do not require any notice to be given to the delinquent employee, an opportunity should be afforded to the delinquent employee irrespective of whether or not some prejudice is shown to have been caused by denial of such opportunity and that principles of natural justice have to be read into the relevant Service Rules. Therefore, without going into the other issues raised by the petitioner, it is sufficient to hold that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority has not called upon the delinquent, giving him an opportunity to deal with the reasons of the Disciplinary Authority to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 7. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to succeed and enquiry has to be necessarily conducted afresh by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority has to forward the reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer's report and after giving an opportunity to the delinquent to deal with the said grounds, appropriate order has to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority thereafter in accordance with law. 8. With the result, the writ petition is allowed with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh as indicated above. No costs.