ORDER Permod Kohli, J. 1. Petitioner is aggrieved of Notification No. 1779 dated 5 th July, 2005, issued by the Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, imposing punishment of reduction in rank upon the petitioner by reducing his pay scale of Junior Selection Grade (Rs.3000-4500/-, un-revised) to the pay scale of Basic Grade (Rs. 2200-4000/- un-revised) from the date of issuance of the notification. 2. Petitioner was serving as District Superintendent of Education, Dumka. He was placed under suspension with effect from 1 st March, 2002 on certain allegations of service misconduct. He was served with the charge sheet vide Resolution No. 893 dated 31 st March, 2002 and as many as nine charges were framed. One Sri K.K. Srivastava, Director, Higher Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi was appointed as enquiry officer to conduct the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. After completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report to the Government vide letter No. 20 dated 3 rd September, 2002 and exonerated the petitioner from all the charges. It is alleged that even though the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner, no decision was taken forcing the petitioner to file W.P.(S) No. 6992 of 2002 before this Court. This writ petition came to be disposed of vide order dated 22 nd January, 2003. This Court taking into consideration the long time in disposal of the departmental proceedings and non- payment of subsistence allowance directed revocation of the suspension order with immediate effect i.e. the date of passing of the judgment. Respondents were further directed to conclude the departmental proceedings within two months and the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the departmental proceeding on the failure of the respondents to conclude the same within the time specified. Further directions for payment of current salary and the arrears of subsistence allowance were also given. The respondents failed to comply the Courts order within the time specified. However, they issued Notification No. 1127 dated 16 tn April, 2003, revoking the suspension of the petitioner. Respondents also issued another order No. 81 dated 3 rd June, 2003, initiating fresh enquiry proceeding against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by this order of fresh enquiry, the petitioner filed another writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2856 of 2003 before this Court. However, they issued Notification No. 1127 dated 16 tn April, 2003, revoking the suspension of the petitioner. Respondents also issued another order No. 81 dated 3 rd June, 2003, initiating fresh enquiry proceeding against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by this order of fresh enquiry, the petitioner filed another writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2856 of 2003 before this Court. This writ petition was also finally disposed of vide .order dated 5th November, 2003, whereby, the order initiating fresh enquiry was quashed and the respondents were allowed liberty to proceed with the departmental proceedings on the basis of earlier enquiry report, in accordance with law. It was also observed that if the disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the findings of the enquiry officer, he can disagree with the findings. Some clarification of this order was made vide order dated 25 th November, 2003, which is not relevant for the purposes of present controversy. Thereafter, the respondents sought certain explanation from the petitioner vide letter No. 1753 dated 3 rd July, 2004, to which the petitioner replied vide his letter No. 970 dated 26 th July, 2004. After about more than one year of the submission of explanation, the impugned order dated 5 th July, 2005 came to be issued by the respondents, imposing major punishment of reduction in pay scale i.e. from Junior Selection Grade (Rs. 3000-4500/-, un-revised) to the Basic Grade (Rs. 2200-4000/-, un-revised). Reduction in pay scale is one of the major punishments, specified in Rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1930, whereas Rule 55 of these Rules prescribes procedure for holding enquiry into the charges. Relevant extracts from Rules 49 and 55 are reproduced hereunder: 49. The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, he imposed upon members of the services comprised in any of the classes (1) to (5) specified in Rule 14, namely: xxx xxx xxx (iii) Reduction to a lower past of time-scale, or to a lower stage in a time-scale. xxx xxx xxx 55. Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries Act, 1850, no order of dismissal, removal. xxx xxx xxx 55. Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public Servants Inquiries Act, 1850, no order of dismissal, removal. compulsory retirement [or reduction] shall be passed on a member of a Service (other than an order based on facts which have led to his conviction in a criminal court or by a Court-Martial) unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and on any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. He shall be required, within a reasonable lime, to put in a written statement of his defence and to stale whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires or if the authority concerned so direct an oral inquiry shall be held. At that inquiry oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted, and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called, as he may wish, provided that the officer, conducting the inquiry may, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and a statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. This rule shall not apply where the person concerned has absconded or where it is for other reasons impracticable to communicate with him. All or any of the provisions of the rule may, in exceptional cases, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing be waived, where there is a difficulty in observing exactly the requirement of the rule and those requirements can be waived without injustice to the person charged. The full procedure prescribed in this rule need not be followed in the case of a probationer discharged in the circumstances described in Explanation II to Rule 49. The full procedure prescribed in this rule need not be followed in the case of a probationer discharged in the circumstances described in Explanation II to Rule 49. In such cases, it will be sufficient if the probationer is given an opportunity to show cause in writing against the discharge after being apprised of the grounds on which it is proposed to discharge him and his reply duly considered before orders are passed. 3. Although there is no specific provision in the Rules including Rule 55 empowering the disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings and report of enquiring authority, but such a power has to be conceded to the Disciplinary authority being the punishing authority. It is the disciplinary authority who has the right and power to take a decision on the enquiry report. Even if the rule is silent, such a right is to be read in the rule itself by virtue of the power of the disciplinary authority to take action on the enquiry report. 4. This Rule, however, clearly mandates that before imposing any of the punishments specified in Rule 55, the disciplinary, authority has to provide an opportunity to the delinquent officer to defend himself. Thus, where disciplinary authority decides to disagree with the enquiry report, it is obligatory for it to record its reasons for such disagreement and to communicate the same with the proposed punishment to the delinquent employee, seeking his explanation/response to the same. 5. Since the disciplinary authority intended to differ with the findings of enquiring authority, it must not only record its findings but also its reasons for disagreement to spell out why he has not accepted the findings of enquiring authority. Such findings and reasons should be conveyed to the delinquent officer as a tentative opinion along with his intention to impose punishment also, to be proposed, and seek his response. This is to enable the delinquent officer to defend himself and dispel the opinion of the disciplinary authority and is in adherence to the principles of natural justice. 6. In the present case, admittedly the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner of all the charges. Petitioner was issued a notice dated 3 rd July, 2004 (Annexure-7), whereby, he was only asked to show cause as to why major punishment be not imposed against him. Petitioners reply was sought within fifteen days. 6. In the present case, admittedly the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner of all the charges. Petitioner was issued a notice dated 3 rd July, 2004 (Annexure-7), whereby, he was only asked to show cause as to why major punishment be not imposed against him. Petitioners reply was sought within fifteen days. There is not even a whisper about the findings of the enquiry officer, the findings of the disciplinary authority and/or the grounds for disagreement. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply and the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order (Annexure-9). Even in the final order, imposing punishment, neither any ground for disagreement with the enquiry report has been recorded not even it discloses the consideration of the petitioners reply to the show cause notice/ explanation. The Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra , considering a similar issue, has held as under: 19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, wherever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on 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 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 enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, 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. 7. In the case of SBI and Ors. v. Arvind K. Shukla reported in (2004)13 SCC 797 , the Supreme Court, concurred with the abovementioned judgment in the case of Punjab National Bank and ors. (supra), observed as under: 1. 7. In the case of SBI and Ors. v. Arvind K. Shukla reported in (2004)13 SCC 797 , the Supreme Court, concurred with the abovementioned judgment in the case of Punjab National Bank and ors. (supra), observed as under: 1. ...The only question that arises for our consideration is whether in a case where the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiring officer on certain articles of charges, then before it records its findings of such charge, it is duty-bound to record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give the same to the delinquent officer, an opportunity to represent before it ultimately records its findings. 2. ...The next question therefore is, as has been formulated earlier, whether the disciplinary authority was required to record its tentative reasons for disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it recorded its ultimate findings. This question is concluded by a three- Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra. The Bench in the aforesaid case relied upon the earlier decision in Institute of Chartered Accountant case as well as Ram Kishan case and came to hold that the view expressed in S.S. Koshal and M.C. Sazena cases do not lay down the correct law. Mr. Sundaravardan, however, brought to our notice yet another three-Judge Bench decision in the case of Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan and contended that a different view has been taken in the aforesaid cases. But on examining the aforesaid decision in Union Bank of India case we find that the question which arose for consideration in Punjab National Bank case was not really there before the Court and the Court was examining the question as to what would be the effect, if copy of the enquiry report is not furnished to the delinquent employee. The Court obviously relied upon the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar. In the absence of any contrary decision of a three-Judge Bench decision on the question in issue, we are bound by the earlier judgment of this Court in Punjab National Bank case necessarily, therefore we do not find any merit in this appeal, which stands dismissed. 8. Mrs. In the absence of any contrary decision of a three-Judge Bench decision on the question in issue, we are bound by the earlier judgment of this Court in Punjab National Bank case necessarily, therefore we do not find any merit in this appeal, which stands dismissed. 8. Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State, has vehemently argued that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. But she has not been able to convince that this show cause notice fulfills the requirement of Rule 55 i.e. providing an opportunity to defend, as the show cause notice is totally silent as regards the recording of reasons for disagreement with the enquiry report. Even the enquiry report does not seem to have been served upon the petitioner, enabling him to reply effectively to the proposed punishment. The ratio of the judgment in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. (supra), followed by the latter judgment in the case of SBI and Ors. (supra), is applicable, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. The impugned order of punishment having been passed in contravention of Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, is liable to be quashed and I order accordingly. 10. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that they be allowed to pass a fresh order. Keeping in view the background of this case that the petitioner had to approach this Court three times, seeking relief against the arbitrary action of the respondents, and that there is total non-application of mind on the part of the respondents, coupled with prolongation of the disciplinary proceedings for a period of four years as also the fact that the petitioner was absolved of all the charges by the enquiry authority, it would be unjust to allow the respondents to reopen the disciplinary proceeding. This petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above manner.