Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-By this writ petition petitioner has challenged validity of orders dated 06.03.1993 (Exhibit 10) whereby penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been inflicted and dated 011.1993 (Exhibit 15) of appellate authority whereby aforesaid penalty inflicted by disciplinary authority has been enhanced to the reduction of his basic pay to the minimum in pay scale in terms of Regulation 17 of Uco Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 ("1976 Regulations"). 2. Facts, in a narrow compass, are that petitioner was initially appointed as Asstt. Cashier-cum-Godown keeper on 14.03.1974 and confirmed on 01.09.1974. For his delinquency, petitioner was served with memo of charge-sheet dated 27.06.1990 (Exhibit 4), Articles of Charges (Exhibit 5) and statement of allegations (Exhibit 6) under Regulation 6 of 1976 Regulations, to which he submitted written statement in his defence and after taking note whereof, disciplinary authority appointed inquiry officer, who after examining witnesses of the department as well as of delinquent, and after hearing both the parties, sent his report (Exhibit 11) to the disciplinary authority. According to findings recorded by inquiry officer, petitioner was exonerated from charge Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5 but held charge No. 2 partly proved. However, disciplinary authority contrarily after analysis of record of inquiry so also findings recorded by inquiry officer, has found charges No. 1, 3, 4 & 5 proved and held the petitioner guilty, and accordingly punished him with penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect for each charge separately vide order dated 06.03.1993 (Exhibit 10) and a copy of inquiry report was furnished to him alongwith order of penalty. Against the order of penalty inflicted upon him, supra, he preferred appeal (Exhibit 12) on 27.04.1993, wherein appellate authority issued show cause notice on the findings and proposed to award penalty of reduction of his basic pay to the minimum of scale applicable to him; to which petitioner in his reply raised objections and challenged the findings recorded by disciplinary authority in holding him guilty despite the fact that he was exonerated of all the charges except charge No. 2 by inquiry officer but a note of disagreement made by disciplinary authority was never supplied to him, despite the same, appellate authority upheld findings of guilty recorded by disciplinary authority and enhanced the penalty vide order dated 011.1993 (Exhibit 15) as referred to in first para of this order. Hence, this petition. 3. Shri Sunil Samdaria Counsel for petitioner urged that once inquiry officer has exonerated petitioner of four charges, disciplinary authority, if at all was disagreed with findings of exoneration of charges, then was under obligation to first supply note of disagreement so as to afford him opportunity of hearing before holding him guilty of such charges -in the absence of which the very findings recorded by disciplinary authority is in violation of Regulation 7 (2) of 1976 Regulations and thereby all further consequential actions stand vitiated. In support of his contention, Shri Samdaria placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in PNB vs. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 (7) SCC 84 , and State Bank of India vs. Arvind K. Shukla, AIR 2001 SC 2398 . 4. Respondent Bank has filed reply to writ petition and has not disputed the fact that a note of disagreement was never supplied by disciplinary authority while holding petitioner guilty of four charges before inflicting penalty upon him vide order dated 06.03.1993 (Exhibit 10). However respondent Bank submitted inter alia that order of disciplinary authority contained detailed reasons, which can be construed to be note of disagreement, which was made available, and he filed reply raising all objections as against findings recorded by disciplinary authority in holding him guilty of four charges and thereafter record of inquiry was examined by appellate authority, which too was satisfied with such findings of guilt and once opportunity has been afforded to him so as to counter findings of guilt, even at appellate stage, no prejudice can at all be said to be caused to him. In support of his submission, Shri Man Singh Gupta Counsel for respondent Bank relied upon decision of Apex Court in State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma, 1996 (2) SLR 631 , as per which once substantial compliance has been made, Court should not interfere under Article 226 of Constitution of India, merely for procedural formality or for non compliance of any provision under the scheme of 1976. 5. I have considered rival contentions and pondered over material on record. 6. As per scheme of 1976, Regulation 6 of 1976 Regulations provides procedure for imposing major penalties specified in Clauses (e), (f), (g) & (h) of Regulation 4, upon delinquent. 5. I have considered rival contentions and pondered over material on record. 6. As per scheme of 1976, Regulation 6 of 1976 Regulations provides procedure for imposing major penalties specified in Clauses (e), (f), (g) & (h) of Regulation 4, upon delinquent. After going through procedure under Regulation 6 of 1976 Regulations, upon its conclusion, inquiry officer submits report of inquiry under Regulation 6(21) and thereafter an action has to be taken by disciplinary authority under Regulation 7 of 1976 Regulations, which read as under:- "7. 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 fresh or further inquiry and report and the inquiry authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Regulation 6 as far as may be. .(2) 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. .(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 Regulation 4 should be imposed on the officer employee it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 8 make an order imposing such penalty. .(4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charges, is of the opinion that no penalty is called for, it may pass an order exonerating the officer employee concerned." 7. Regulation 7 of 1976 Regulations clearly postulates that disciplinary authority has to examine record of inquiry and after recording reasons in writing either to remit the matter to inquiring authority for fresh or further inquiry, if it is not satisfied with procedure followed by inquiry authority under Regulation 6 of 1976 Regulations; and if it is disagreeing with findings on any article of charges, may record its reasons for such disagreement and then to record its own findings; and based on findings, may consider for imposition of penalty to be inflicted upon delinquent. But once findings has been recorded in favour of delinquent by inquiry officer and if disciplinary authority disagrees with such findings, note of disagreement which contain reasons, has to be supplied to the delinquent against whom prejudicial action is likely to be acted by disciplinary authority and this is what due compliance of principles of natural justice, which contemplate that no one be condemned unheard and no prejudicial order be passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing. 8. Regulation 7(2) of PNB Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977, which is pari materia to present Regulation 7(2) of 1976 Regulations came up for consideration before Apex Court in PNB vs. Kunj B. Misra (Supra), and it has been held:- "Principles of natural justice will have, therefore, to be read into Regulation 7 (2). Whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiring authority on any article of charge then before it records its 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 enquiry 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 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." (Para 19) 9. In present case, undisputably a note of disagreement was not supplied to petitioner before he has been held guilt for the charges and before inflicting with impugned penalty by disciplinary authority; in the absence of affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner by providing copy of disagreement note of disciplinary authority, before recording finding of guilt against him, such action of respondent Bank, in my opinion, was clearly violative of principles of natural justice, so also Regulation 7 (2) of 1976 Regulations, resulting in vitiating the penalty inflicted upon him. 10. 10. So far as cause of prejudice is concerned, in my opinion, when findings are recorded by disciplinary authority in holding petitioner guilty despite the fact that he has been exonerated of charges in course of inquiry, there cannot be more prejudice to be caused when the delinquent has not made aware of findings, on which guilt has been found proved against him, and only after the guilt is recorded, such a circumstance arises, what penalty can be inflicted upon delinquent by disciplinary authority, in my opinion, action of respondent Bank in holding petitioner guilty without supplying him note of disagreement so as to meet out findings of guilt recorded behind his back, is in violation of principles of natural justice as also of Article 14 of Constitution of India and the action has caused substantial prejudice to him. 11. As submitted by Counsel for respondents that after the reasons of disagreement followed in the order of penalty has been supplied and opportunity was afforded to him at appellate stage, in my opinion, will be of no substance for the reason that if basic order of disciplinary authority is in violation of principle of natural justice so also Regulations 7(2) of 1676 Regulations, and disciplinary authority has failed to comply with minimum requirement of opportunity of hearing after recording disagreement with findings recorded by inquiring authority in his favour, and before recording findings of guilt against him, certainly has caused prejudice to him, which in my opinion cannot be ruled out at appellate stage; coupled with the fact the basic defect in the impugned order of disciplinary authority which goes to the root cause, cannot be cured at a subsequent stage. 12. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 06.03.1993 (Exhibit 10) of disciplinary authority so also dated 011.1993 (Exhibit 15) of appellate authority are quashed and set aside; and respondent Bank will be free to proceed further in accordance with 1976 Regulations afresh after providing note of disagreement to the petitioner. No order as to costs.