Judgment Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.-The instant special appeal has been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the Judgment dated 111.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3126/2000 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant (herein) was dismissed. 2. As per the facts arising out of the pleadings, it is stated by the appellant that he was appointed on 20.04.1993 as Constable in the Rajasthan Armed constabulary through open market competition on probation and after completion of the period of probation he was confirmed on the said post. The recruitment to the post of Constable was made in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents for the posts of Constable. The appellant filed an application in pursuance of the said advertisement on 212.1992. After due process of law, he was given appointment and as per Column No 4 of the application form he has shown his date of birth as 03.07.1972. In Column No.9 of the said application form, the appellant mentioned that he possessed 8th class pass certificate from Gyandeep Upper Primary School, Uchchain (Bharatpur). 3. It is the case of the appellant that on receipt of a complaint filed by one Abhimanyu Singh alleging therein that the certificate of VIII standard produced by him was forged. On recommendation of the enquiry officer, Department lodged F.I.R....against him, at Police Station Mandore. Police having found no case forwarded Final Report in negative which came to be accepted by the Court. However, on the same facts, the Department proceeded against the appellant and instituted regular requiry against the appellant under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (in short, to be called the CCA Rules" hereinafter). A charge-sheet was served upon the appellant on 15.01.1998 alongwith statement of allegations. The gravemen of the charge against appellant is that he obtained appointment by producing a forged document of age and qualification. 4. It is further the case of the appellant that before the Enquiry Officer, the appellant specifically averred that the so-called complainant Abhimanyu Singh is a fictitious person and, in fact, the complainant was never examined at the enquiry by the prosecution. 4. It is further the case of the appellant that before the Enquiry Officer, the appellant specifically averred that the so-called complainant Abhimanyu Singh is a fictitious person and, in fact, the complainant was never examined at the enquiry by the prosecution. The appellant prayed before the Enquiry Officer for supply of copies of the documents but he was only permitted to inspect the documents and copies of the documents were not supplied to him. The Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents in support of the case of the department. In defence, the appellant led evidence of two witnesses and also adduced documentary evidence. After holding the enquiry into the charges, the Enquiry Officer reached the conclusion that the Department failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellant and thus vide report dated 15.01.1999 exonerated him. The Disciplinary Authority, expressing disagreement with the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, issued notice dated 21.01.1999 to the appellant to show cause as to why the major penaly provided under Rule 14 of the CCA Rules be not imposed upon him. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the reply, held the appellant guilty and imposed penalty of dismissal form service by order dated 22.02.1999. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal which was also dismissed by the appellant authority. The appellant also preferred a review application which was also rejected by the competent authority. The writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as appellant authority was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 111.2003, as noted above. Hence, this appeal. 5. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer did not at all care to base his conclusion on the material on record. The order of the Disciplinary Authority is vague and cryptic and merely points out disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It has been vehemently argued that the Disciplinary Authority was under legal obligation to put down reasons for the variance of opinion while disagreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. The order of the Disciplinary Authority is vague and cryptic and merely points out disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It has been vehemently argued that the Disciplinary Authority was under legal obligation to put down reasons for the variance of opinion while disagreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. According to law, the Disciplinary Authority was required to shape up premises on the basis of material on record for arriving at the conclusion of disagreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. It was next contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is sharp variance in the findings of both the Enquiry Officer as well as Disciplinary Authority. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in law in not appreciating that the disagreement posed by the Disciplinary Authority was not based on any reasonings set out by specific premises. 6. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the so called Abhimanyu Singh was not examined in the preliminary enquiry as well as enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. In the criminal complaint, the police presented FR in the case before the Magistrate, which was accepted by the Court. Learned Counsel for the appellant also argued that the Enquiry Officer, after detailed enquiry had given a well reasoned report discussing the entire evidence which further necessitated under the law for the Disciplinary Authority to make out specific case, in case, it chose to disagree with the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. 7. It was next contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellate authority failed to appreciate that the report of the Enquiry Officer was to be accepted as correct because there were no sufficient reasons to disagree with the report to the Enquiry Officer. It was represented before the Appellate Authority that the Disciplinary Authority failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the rules as it was required under the law to give reasons for the disagreement with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The learned Addl. Government Advocate has supported the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. 8. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. The learned Addl. Government Advocate has supported the Judgment of the learned Single Judge. 8. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. The crucial issue involved in this appeal moves around Rule 16(12) of the CCA Rules, which is extracted as under:-"Orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority shall be communicated to the Government servant who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority and where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority, unless they have already been supplied to him, and also a copy of the advice, if any given by the Commission and, where the Disciplinary Authority has not accepted the advice of the Commission, a brief statement of the reasons for such non-acceptance" 9. We would not have had any hesitation in affirming the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge had it been a case of concurrent finding of fact. The basic finding of fact has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer and in the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority sharply varied in its opinion as to the conclusion and, therefore, under the law, the Disciplinary Authority was under the obligation to base his disagreement on lawful reasons to be recorded by it. The Disciplinary Authority proceeded on its own notion without establishing the perversity in the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer. With the variance in conclusion, grounds of variance ought to come on record which cannot be circumvented by cryptic suggestion of disagreement. It is well-settled that where the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on an article of charge, then before recording the finding, the Disciplinary Authority must point out specifically its tentative reasons for such disagreement which need be communicated to the delinquent official and the delinquent must be heard thereupon. The plain and simple law to be appreciated in the proceedings is that the Disciplinary Authority must not fall into perversity of finding and must take caution to base its conclusion on the material on record by reasons. 10. The plain and simple law to be appreciated in the proceedings is that the Disciplinary Authority must not fall into perversity of finding and must take caution to base its conclusion on the material on record by reasons. 10. In Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra, 1999 (7) SCC 739 , the Supreme Court categorically held that before the Disciplinary Authority finally disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority, it would give an opportunity to indicate that the finding recorded by the Inquiring Authority do not suffer from any error and that there was no occasion to take a different view. The Disciplinary Authority has to communicate to the delinquent officer the "tentative" reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiring Authority so that the delinquent officer may further indicate that the reasons on the basis of which the Disciplinary Authority proposes to disagree with the findings recorded by the Inquiring Authority are not germane and the findings of "not guilty" already recorded by the Inquiring Authority was not liable to be interfered with. Further, if the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are in favour of the delinquent and it has been held that the charges are not proved, it is all the more necessary to give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee before reversing those findings. 11. In the case in hand, the show-cause notice issued to the appellant was regarding penalty proposed to be imposed upon him. This show-cause notice does not meet requirement of law inasmuch as the Disciplinary Authority had already taken the final decision with regard to the charges levelled against the appellant without providing any opportunity of hearing. The show-cause notice has been issued thereafter calling upon the appellant to show-cause against the punishment proposed only. This procedure is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 (7) SCC 84 . The Disciplinary Authority, in the event of disagreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, at that stage, was supposed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent. 12. We are afraid the aforesaid material irregularity has escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge who categorically observed that the enquiry was held fairly and impartially. The Disciplinary Authority, in the event of disagreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, at that stage, was supposed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent. 12. We are afraid the aforesaid material irregularity has escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge who categorically observed that the enquiry was held fairly and impartially. However, the ingredient of reasons for disagreement before recording the finding by the Disciplinary Authority has not been taken note of by the learned Single Judge. By a careful scrutiny of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Annex.-6) to the writ petitions) we find that the Disciplinary Authority has merely proceeded on surmises and conjectures. Though the Disciplinary Authority reached the conclusion that the charge is proved against the appellant yet, surprisingly enough, it did not care to give any finding over the question of forgery of the document. In these facts and circumstances, we do not find ourselves persuaded to hold good the finding of the Disciplinary Authority in the conspicuous absence of the reasons for disagreement and compliance of the principles of natural justice by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority was under an obligation to formulate the grounds for difference in opinion and further to hear the delinquent thereupon. That being so, in the circumstances, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge dated 111.2003 is set aside and resultantly, the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority (Annex. -6 to the writ petition) appellate authority (Annex.-8) and reviewing authority (Annex.-10) are quashed and set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. No order as to cost.w