Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-By present petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 19.05.1988 (Annexure-4) whereby he has been punished with penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect and further forfeiture of salary other than subsistence allowance paid during suspension; and order dated 110.1990 (Annexure-5) whereby his appeal against punishment order was rejected by appellate authority. 2. Facts, in brief , are that while the petitioner was posted as Patwari in Patwar area Nangal Panditpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 06.03.1986 and charge-sheet dated 05.09.1986 under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 ("CCA Rules") was served. Pending inquiry, he was reinstated vide order dated 19.05.1988 by Collector, Jaipur. After regular inquiry, all three charges were not found proved by inquiry officer, who sent his negative report to disciplinary authority, who agreed with conclusions drawn by inquiry officer in respect of charge Nos. 1 and 2, but disagreeing with conclusions for charge No. 3 and after holding petitioner guilty, punished him with penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments, with cumulative effect, vide order dated 19.05.1988 (Annexure-4) and his appeal was also rejected by appellate authority vide order dated 110.1990 (Annexure-5). Hence, this writ petition. 3. Albeit validity of impugned orders of punishment upheld by appellate authority has been assailed on numerous grounds on merits of charges also, but ultimately much stress has been laid to only ground of non-compliance of provisions contained in Rule 16(9) and (10) of CCA Rules which resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Counsel for petitioner contends that once inquiry officer has not found either of charges proved against him, it was incumbent upon disciplinary authority if at all disagreed with findings recorded by inquiry officer to first provide a Note of his disagreement alongwith show cause notice and after taking into consideration his explanation/reply to the notice, and after affording him opportunity of hearing the finding of guilt or disagreement could have been recorded by disciplinary authority and this action of respondents has clearly violated provisions of Rule 16(9) and 16(10) of CCA Rules so also principles of natural justice, which requires interference by this Court. Counsel urged that before passing impugned order of penalty (supra), indisputably neither note of disagreement to findings recorded by inquiry officer in respect of charge No. 3 has been supplied nor any show cause notice was issued by disciplinary authority to the petitioner, thereby it has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. In support of contention, Counsel placed reliance upon decisions of Apex Court in Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998(7) SCC 84 , State Bank of India vs. KP Narayana, 2003 (2) SCC 449 , and that of this Court in Mamdin Khan vs. RSRTC, 2005 (3) WLC 123 (DB) = [2005 (4) RDD 887 (Raj) (DB)], Ram Bilas Sharma vs. State, 2002(3) WLC 703 . 5. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition and inter alia averred that after order of punishment was passed by disciplinary authority, petitioner had preferred appeal and at that stage, he had an opportunity to point out about prejudice caused on account of non-supply of Note of disagreement and issuance of show cause notice but having failed to do so, requirement of Rule 16(9) and 16(10) of CCA Rules has been complied with by respondents while he was held guilty and punished by disciplinary authority and that apart, appellate authority has taken note thereof while rejecting his appeal; as such no prejudice has been caused to him. 6. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Likewise controversy raised herein has arisen before Apex Court in Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra (Supra), wherein Regulation 7(2) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 which is pari materia to present Rule 16(9) of CCA Rules, was considered and in Para 19, Apex Court observed as under: - "Principle 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 charges then before its records its finding 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 inquiry officer containing its finding will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept favourable conclusion of the inquiry officer. The report of the inquiry officer containing its finding will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept 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". 7. Apex Court arrived at aforequoted conclusions in consonance with underlying principle enunciated in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. L.K. Ratna, 1986(4) SCC 537 and following Constitution Bench decision of Apex Court in MD ECIL vs. B. Karunakar¸ 1993 (4) SCC 727 . 8. In State Bank of India vs. KP Narayana Kutty (Supra), Apex Court reiterated underlying principles quoted above, and held that it was a duty of punishing authority while treating as fully proved charges found by enquiry officer to be partly proved, to afford an opportunity of being heard to delinquent irrespective of whether or not some prejudice is shown to have been caused by denial of such opportunity. 9. In Mahendra Dixit vs. State of Rajasthan, 1993 (3) WLC 578, wherein similar circumstances likewise present controversy, this Court held as under: -"If the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer which are favourable to the delinquent, it has to record its reasons. The delinquent can get an opportunity to know about these reasons only when a notice of the reasons of disagreement is given to him. If the disciplinary authority imposes the punishment without communicating those reasons to the delinquent, the disciplinary authority will be held to have acted on the delinquent. Even in cases, where statutory rules are not applicable, compliance of principles of natural justice is implicit and in present case, apart from the rules of natural justice, even the bare requirement of Rule 16(9) warrants that the disciplinary authority must consider the record of inquiry as referred to in Rule 16(8) and record its findings on the charges levelled against the delinquent together with its reasons for disagreement. Although, Rule 16(10) has been amended vide notification dated 10.06.1983, this Court has taken the view that supply of copy of inquiry report together with reasons for disagreement is still necessary. Although, Rule 16(10) has been amended vide notification dated 10.06.1983, this Court has taken the view that supply of copy of inquiry report together with reasons for disagreement is still necessary. Rule 16(12) clearly brings out this obligation of the disciplinary authority. The use of words, "if not already supplied to the delinquent" used in Rule 16 it is incumbent on the disciplinary authority to furnish a copy of the report of inquiry officer together with reasons for disagreement". 10. Thus viewed and applying afore quoted underlying principles of service jurisprudence to instant facts situation, once the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent petitioner as charges were not found proved by inquiry officer, and the disciplinary authority proposed to differ with such conclusions he is under an obligation to provide the delinquent "a Note of disagreement" and to afford him an opportunity of being heard before the finding of guilt is recorded by authority against him, otherwise he would be condemned unheard. Having failed to do so, the disciplinary authority has violated principles of natural justice resulting into vitiating inquiry proceeding and thereby impugned order of punishment is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. 11. As regards submission made by Counsel for respondents that opportunity was afforded to delinquent at appellate stage, in my opinion is of no substance for the reasons that basic and fundamental defect in order of disciplinary authority could not have been cured at appellate stage by providing post decisional hearing because this is nothing but putting cart before the horse which is not legally permissible in facts situation of instant case. 12. Since departmental inquiry is of 1986 and almost 20 years have passed and looking to nature of charges and findings recorded by inquiry officer who found all the three charges not proved on record, therefore, it would not be interest of justice now to remand the matter at this stage to disciplinary authority for proceeding afresh. 13. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 19.05.1988 (Annexure-4) and dated 110.1990 (Annexure-5) alongwith inquiry proceedings initiated under charge sheet in question are set aside and as a consequence whereof , petitioner is entitled for consequential benefits. No costs.