Short controversy involved in the present petition is whether the delinquent officer is entitled to be afforded an opportunity of being heard where the disciplinary authority dis-agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer decides to impose punishment upon such delinquent officer. 2. Petitioner herein was working as Superintendent BR-I in the pay scale of 5500-9000 and was posted at 852 DM PL under 69 RCC at Vijaypur Ramgarh and SM Pur Road. Some inquiry was initiated against one N.S. Doon, EE c OC 69 RCC regarding construction of a private bridge near Tohana (Haryana). Petitioner was summoned as a witness in the said inquiry. On the basis of the statement recorded during the Court of Inquiry initiated against said Mr. Doon, the authorities proposed to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner and two others. Accordingly, departmental inquiry was initiated. Lt. Col Dharma Pal, Second-In-Command was appointed as Inquiry Officer vide order dated 14-2-2001. On completion of Inquiry final report was submitted to the higher authorities in Aug 2001. Inquiry Officer recorded the following findings in respect of the petitioner: "Department has not been able to prove that Sh T. Benjwal was responsible for marking presence in the attendance register he says it was being done by Shri VS Patel SKT. This attendance register was also not produced otherwise it would have been possible to see from the register as to who was maintaining this register. No name of other documents has been given nor produced which CO tried to destroy." 3. Petitioner was informed about the afore-said inquiry report on 16-11-2002. According to the petitioner last page of inquiry report was not given to him and he accordingly vide his letters dated 3-12-2002 and 5-12-2002 requested for the supply of the complete Inquiry report. He was informed vide letter No. 140 dated 17-12-2002 that the inquiry report comprised of total four pages and the same was correctly sent to the petitioner. He was also intimated that he is entitled to only copy of the inquiry report and not the complete DE proceedings. Petitioner submits that he was expecting his promotion and as the departmental proceedings were not being concluded, forced by the circumstances he filed writ petition SWP No. 2509/02 before this Court which came to be decided vide order dated 1-10-2002 whereby the respondents were directed to complete the proceedings within a period of two months. Petitioner submits that he was expecting his promotion and as the departmental proceedings were not being concluded, forced by the circumstances he filed writ petition SWP No. 2509/02 before this Court which came to be decided vide order dated 1-10-2002 whereby the respondents were directed to complete the proceedings within a period of two months. Respondents sought extension in time for completion of the proceedings which was also allowed. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. respondent No. 3 finally passed the impugned order dated 27-1-2003, whereby the following penalty was imposed: "GS-121912F Supdt BR I T Benjwal is reduced to the lower post/grade/service of Supdt BR II until he is found fit by the competent authority to be restored to the higher post/grade/service of Supdt BR I, till retirement." 4. According to the petitioner, he has been reduced in rank. The post of Superintendent BR-I is a superior post which carries the pay scale of 5500-9000 and the powers, duties and responsibilities are also higher and different to the post of Superintendent BR-II, which carries a pay scale of 4500-7000. The post of Superintendent BR-II is subject to the administrative control of Superintendent BR-I. Accordingly, the reduction in rank is a punishment both in terms of rank, pay scale, grade and the powers and functions attached to the said post. 5. The main thrust of the argument of the petitioner and the grounds of challenge is that the disciplinary authority did not afford any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before awarding the punishment after he decided to dis-agree with the findings/conclusions of the Inquiring authority. Reliance is placed on two judgments, one reported as Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1999 SC 3734, and other, Sheikh Mohammad Afzal v. State of J&K and others, 1988 KLJ 255. 6. Objections have been filed wherein the contention of the petitioner that he had been denied reasonable opportunity of being heard at the stage of imposing punishment and on the question of recording dis-agreement with the report of the Inquiry Officer, is denied. It is also denied that the principles of natural justice have been violated. What is stated is that the report of the inquiry was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 17-11-2002 through HQ 13 BRTF for making observation/ submissions/ representation, if so desired by him. It is also denied that the principles of natural justice have been violated. What is stated is that the report of the inquiry was sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 17-11-2002 through HQ 13 BRTF for making observation/ submissions/ representation, if so desired by him. Petitioner did not respond to the afore-said communication and finally the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order on 27-1-2003. It is stated that the disciplinary authority has exercised the power conferred under Rule 9 (2) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965, read in conjunction with Govt of India, Ministry of Surface Transport, BRDB Gazette Notification bearing No. BRDB/13(53)/99, GE-II dated 16-5-2000 and imposed punishment under Rule 11 (vi) of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. It is also stated that on examination of the report of inquiry and the record, the disciplinary authority recorded the reasons for dis-agreement and on his own conclusion, in accordance with the rules, imposed the punishment upon the petitioner. It is further argued that under Rule 15 (4) of CCS (CC&A) Rules 1965 no fresh opportunity is required to be given to the charge officer before the punishment is imposed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on the file. 8. It is admitted case of both the parties that the inquiry was initiated in terms of Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules 1965 which prescribes the procedure for imposing the penalties. On conclusion of the inquiry proceedings, the authorities are required to proceed in accordance with Rule 15. For purposes of convenience Rule 15 is quoted below: "15. ACTION ON THE INQUIRY REPORT: (1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the inquiring 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 inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14, as far as may be. (1-A) The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, a copy of the report of the incurring authority to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the government servant. (1-B) The disciplinary authority shall consider the representation, if any, submitted by the government servant before proceeding further in the manner specified in sub-rules (2 to (4). (2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, m record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence 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 any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 16, 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 and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing any penalty on the Government servant. (4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the government servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed. 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 and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making an order imposing any such penalty on the Government servant." 9. Under Rule 15 (1) on receipt of inquiry report the disciplinary authority, if not itself inquiring authority may remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report after recording reasons. Under sub-rule (1-A) of Rule 15 the disciplinary authority is under statutory obligation to forward the copy of the report of the inquiring authority to the Government servant, who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant. Under sub-rule (1-B) the disciplinary authority is required to consider the representation before proceeding further in the matter. Sub-rule (2) mandates the disciplinary authority to record reasons and its own findings where it dis-agrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any Article of Charge, if evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. Similarly under sub-rule (3) the disciplinary authority is authorized to impose punishment as prescribed under classes (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 on the basis of findings recorded by it. Sub-Rule (4) further authorizes the disciplinary authority to impose penalty specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 and in such an event no opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed is required to be given to the charge-officer. 10. In the present case the penalty imposed is under clause (vi) of Rule 11. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 15 of CCS (CC&A) Rules 1965 has no application to the present case and it is only where the disciplinary authority dis-agrees with the findings of the inquiring authority that an opportunity of being heard is required to be provided to the delinquent officer. Once such an opportunity is provided, then for the purposes of imposing punishment/penalty no further opportunity may be given as is provided under sub-rule (4) of Rule 15. 11. Mr. D.C. Raina has relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in case Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1999 SC 3734. Once such an opportunity is provided, then for the purposes of imposing punishment/penalty no further opportunity may be given as is provided under sub-rule (4) of Rule 15. 11. Mr. D.C. Raina has relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in case Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1999 SC 3734. In this case a judicial officer was dismissed from service on the basis of findings recorded by the disciplinary authority after it dis-agreed with the inquiry report. The delinquent officer was issued show cause notice alongwith findings recorded by the inquiry officer as also the reasons recorded by the disciplinary committee for dis-agreeing with those findings. He was asked to show cause against the punishment proposed by the disciplinary committee which had already taken a decision that the charges against the delinquent officer were proved. It was not indicated to him that the disciplinary committee had come to a tentative decision and that he could show cause against that too. The Honble Supreme Court on consideration of the issue of principles of natural justice and right of the delinquent officer of being heard at the stage of dis-agreement held as under: "In the instant case, we have scrutinized the reasons for the Disciplinary Committee and have found that it had taken its final decision without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant at the stage at which it proposed to differ with the findings of the Enquiry officer. We have also found that the complainants story with regard to the place at which the demand was allegedly made by the appellant was inconsistent. We have also noticed that the trap laid by the A.C.B. Nagpur against the appellant had failed and was held by the Enquiry Officer to be a farce and not having been laid with the permission of the Chief Justice. We have also noticed that there was absolute non-consideration of the statements of defence witnesses, namely, Dr. Naranje and Mr. Bapat, Advocate by the Disciplinary Committee. This factor in itself was sufficient to vitiate the findings recorded by that committee contrary to the findings of the Enquiry Officer." A similar view has been taken by this Court in Sheikh Mohammad Afzal v. State of J&K and others, 1988 KLJ 255 (para 9) and in case B.B. Gupta v. Union of India and others, 1995 JKLR page 172 (para 15) . In the above case the Court placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Narayan Misra v. state of Orissa, 1969 S.L.R 657. The Apex Court in this case held - "6. Now if the Conservator of Forests intended taking the charges on which he was acquitted into account, it was necessary that the attention of the appellant ought to have been drawn to this fact and his explanation, if any, called for. This does not appear to have been done. In other words, the conservator of Forests used against him the charges of which he was acquitted without warning him that he was going to use them. This is against all principles of fair play and natural justice. If the Conservator of the Forests wanted to use them, he should have apprised him of his own attitude and given him an adequate opportunity. Since, that opportunity was not given, the order of the Conservator of Forests, modified by the State Government cannot be upheld. We accordingly, set aside the order and remit the case to the conservator of Forests for dealing with it in accordance with law. If the Conservator of Forests wants to take into account the other two charges, he shall give proper notice to the appellant intimating to him that those charges would also be considered and afford him an opportunity of explaining them." In the case of B.B. Gupta (Supra) the Court considered the scope of Rule 15 (2) of CCS (CC&A) Rules 1965 under which action has been taken in the present case. 12. In the present case, it is admitted position that no fresh opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner at the time the Disciplinary Authority exercised its power to record dis-agreement with the report of the Inquiring Authority nor the petitioner was asked to explain on the question of dis-agreement and the tentative opinion formulated by the Disciplinary Authority. What was done in the case was the petitioner was asked to submit his representation/submissions against the inquiry report. Petitioner was not made known regarding the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority and the grounds/reasons for his dis-agreement with the report of the Inquiring Authority. What was done in the case was the petitioner was asked to submit his representation/submissions against the inquiry report. Petitioner was not made known regarding the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority and the grounds/reasons for his dis-agreement with the report of the Inquiring Authority. It is this stage where the delinquent official was required to be provided an opportunity of being heard as the Disciplinary Authority intended to pass an order adverse to the charged officer on the basis of the same material on which he was earlier exonerated by the Inquiring Authority, though Rule does not specifically provide an opportunity of being heard, but in view of the fact that the valuable right of the delinquent official is affected to his detriment, the principles of natural justice have to be read into sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of CCS (CC&A) Rules 1965 as has been held by the Apex Court and this Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove. 13. For what has been stated above, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 27-1-2003 imposing penalty of reduction in rank and pay scale upon the petitioner is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. I order accordingly. However, the respondents are at liberty to re-consider the matter after providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.