ORDER 1. The petitioner was working with the respondents Food Corporation of India (for short FCI). He claims to have been promoted from the post of Assistant Grade III to Assistant Grade II vide order dated 4.12.1985 (Annexure A). He was issued a charge memo dated 26.10.1990 (Annexure G). Following were the charges against the petitioner: "Shri Brij Nandan Sharma, while functioning as AG. III (D) in SP, FCI, Satna during the period 1987 committed gross misconduct inasmuch as he in connivance with S/Shri H.P. Prasad, B.R. Passi misappropriated 150 bags of wheat on 15.6.1987 by manipulation, alterations, additions in the Depot (CAP) records and by not observing and adhering to the rules/regulations and normal practice which caused financial loss to the tune of Rs. 29,250/- to the Corporation & corresponding gain to them. Shri B.Y. Sharma, by his above acts exhibited lack of integrity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Corporation employee and thereby violated Regulations 31, 32 and 32-A of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971." 2. The petitioner denied the said charges vide his reply dated 15.11.1990. The Enquiry Officer after recording the evidence held that the charges are not proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 18.11.1993 (Annexure L) disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer observed thus: "The undersigned does not agree with the findings of the inquiry officer." The inquiry officer vide para 4 of his report has himself stated that truck No. CPA-3244 was unloaded at 5 places without any reasons. The depot records and entries were altered and corrected, and not agreeing with each other. There was sufficient space in every stock to accommodate the entire stock of 150 bags. The C.O. made corrections in Ex. P-3 of 'E' Plinth which was not under his charge. In his defence brief the CO has stated that he initialled the cuttings and over writings on Ex. P-3 daily diary. As regards 4th truck leaving first the C.O. has stated that there is no such procedure as first come first out. The CO has also stated that the truck was handled by Shri H.P. Prasad who gave acknowledgement (Ex. P-2-A). Shri Sharma was not having the charge of plinth-E. Therefore, his contention that he had corrected the entries and initialled it on the advice of his senior is not acceptable. The CO has also stated that the truck was handled by Shri H.P. Prasad who gave acknowledgement (Ex. P-2-A). Shri Sharma was not having the charge of plinth-E. Therefore, his contention that he had corrected the entries and initialled it on the advice of his senior is not acceptable. To this extent the connivance of Shri Sharma and mala fide intention is proved and accordingly a penalty of 'Stoppage of one increment of pay' is imposed on Shri B.Y. Sharma AG. ill (D)." Now, therefore, the undersigned hereby imposes on Shri Sharma AG. III (D) the penalty as specified above to meet the ends of justice." 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of penalty the petitioner has filed this petition. Though in the writ petition the petitioner raised several grounds and prayed for various reliefs but when the matter came up for hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioner confined the prayer only to the extent that it was obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority when it disagreed with the findings of the enquiry report which are favourable to the petitioner, to give an opportunity to the petitioner after forwarding the tentative reasons to him in regard to the proposed disagreement and for this infirmity, the order of disciplinary authority be quashed and the matter be remitted to the disciplinary authority. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand contended that under the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations 1971 (for short 'Regulations') there is no provision for supplying the note of proposed disagreement to the delinquent employee. He further contended that the petitioner was imposed minor penalty and in view of Regulation 59 (4) it was not necessary on the part of the respondents to give him opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed. 5. Regulation 59 (2) of the Regulations provides that: "The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the finding of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own finding of such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose". Although the Regulation 59 does not provide for grant of opportunity to the delinquent after affording the tentative reasons to him in regard to the proposed disagreement. Although the Regulation 59 does not provide for grant of opportunity to the delinquent after affording the tentative reasons to him in regard to the proposed disagreement. However, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunjbihari Mishra [ AIR 1998 SC 2713 ] and Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra [ (1999) 7 SCC 739 ] in which it has been held that the disciplinary authority when it disagrees with the findings of the enquiry report which are favourable to the delinquent is required to give an opportunity to the delinquent after affording the tentative reasons to him in regard to the proposed disagreement even if the Rules do not provide for grant of such opportunity, the same has to be read in the Rule. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondents that in the Regulations there is no provision for supplying the tentative reasons in regard to the proposed disagreement and as such it was not required for the disciplinary authority to issue show cause notice in regard to the proposed disagreement before passing final order cannot be accepted: 7. So far as reliance on Regulation 59 (4) of the Regulations the same has no applicability at the stage of requirement of issuance of the show cause notice with tentative reasons of the proposed disagreement. Thus, in regard to the disagreement with the finding of the enquiry report, it was obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to serve the petitioner a show cause notice even if he has been inflicted a minor penalty. As already observed the aforesaid show cause notice with tentative reasons in regard to the proposed disagreement has not been served upon the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order of penalty cannot be sustained. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 18.11.1993 (Annexure L) passed by the disciplinary authority is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority with liberty to issue show cause notice to the petitioner with tentative reasons for his proposed disagreement and give an opportunity thereafter to the petitioner and after considering the same pass a final order as to whether he would disagree with the finding of the enquiry officer and if he decides it, then proceed to impose the penalty. 9. 9. The petition is accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to cost.