ORDER (Oral) 1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 24.4.2001 passed by respondent No.2, by which the penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect was issued. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 26.3.2002 passed by respondent No.3 Annexure A-1 in appeal affirming the order of respondent No.2. 2. It is the case of petitioner that he was served with a charge-sheet alleging three allegations for committing misconduct. The reply was submitted by him and thereafter an enquiry was held. 3. The Enquiry Officer has given his report on 22.3.2001 Annexure A-5. In enquiry report, the finding is recorded that the charges as levelled against the petitioner has not found proved. On issuing the show cause notice of proposed penalty by respondent No.2 on 24.3.2001, petitioner has submitted the reply thereof. In the reply it is stated that the charges as levelled against the petitioner has not been found proved by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the issuance of the show cause notice of the proposed penalty is liable to be rejected and the enquiry proceedings deserve to be dropped. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents have acted in gross violation of Rule 15 (1), (2) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. It is submitted by him that if the Enquiry Officer has not found proved the charges of misconduct then respondent No.2 either record it's own finding, on the basis of material available on record to prove such charges, otherwise disciplinary authority should have passed an order for further enquiry from the stage of the recording of the evidence. 5. While issuing the notice to show cause for proposed penalty no such recourse has been taken by the disciplinary authority, therefore, the order AnnexureA-2 dated 24.4.2001 passed by respondent No. 2 is illegal and without following the procedure of law. 6. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that appellate authority has' also not considered the legal point as enumerated hereinabove. Therefore, the order of the appellate authority is also liable to be quashed. 7. This petition was filed in the year of 2002 and the notices were issued to the respondents. Respondents have not yet filed the return in this case. The case has been received to the Registry of this Court on abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, the order of the appellate authority is also liable to be quashed. 7. This petition was filed in the year of 2002 and the notices were issued to the respondents. Respondents have not yet filed the return in this case. The case has been received to the Registry of this Court on abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal. However, considering the nature of the grievance involved in the present case, I am not inclined to grant further time for filing of the return to the respondents. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. On perusal of the records, it is apparent that the Enquiry Officer, while submitting the enquiry report on 22.3.2001, finding in record that the charges as levelled against the petitioner has not been found proved. Even thereafter relying on such enquiry report respondent No.2 has issued a notice for proposed penalty on 26.3.2001 of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. The show cause notice was based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, wherein the charges as levelled against the petitioner was not found proved. Considering the dispute involved in this case, the provisions of Rule 15 (1) and (2) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1996 are required to be referred here, which is reproduced here as under: (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 further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14 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. 9. On consideration of the aforesaid provisions it is apparent like daylight that disciplinary authority has to either remit the matter to inquiry authority recording it's reasons for further inquiry and to submit the report, or, the disciplinary authority shall record it's reasons either to prove or disprove the charge on the basis of the evidence available on record. 10. 9. On consideration of the aforesaid provisions it is apparent like daylight that disciplinary authority has to either remit the matter to inquiry authority recording it's reasons for further inquiry and to submit the report, or, the disciplinary authority shall record it's reasons either to prove or disprove the charge on the basis of the evidence available on record. 10. In the present case the disciplinary authority has not adopted the procedure either under Rule 15 (1) or under Rule 15 (2) of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. However the order passed by the disciplinary authority is against the procedure prescribed under the law. The appellate authority while deciding appeal in exercising quasi-judicial powers has not considered the legal issue involved in the case. Considering the same the order of the penalty passed by the respondent No.2 on 24.4.2001 AnnexureA-2 and order of appellate authority dated 26.3.2002 Annexure A-1 are liable to be quashed. 11. In the result the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority Annexure A-2 dated 24.4.2001 and appellate authority Annexure A-1 dated 26.3.2002 are hereby quashed. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case there is no order as to costs.