JUDGMENT By the Court.—The service rules applicable to the petitioner, to be more precise-Rule 9 (2) of the Service Rules, says that if the disciplinary authority decides to take a view different from the enquiry officer and by taking such different view, decides to hold the delinquent employee guilty as against the exoneration by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority is required to record reasons for the different view which it proposes to take and is also required to communicate such reasons to the delinquent employee to enable such employee to make a representation or defence against the said proposal. 2. In the present case, the disciplinary authority’s order dated 24.9.2001 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) refers to the notice dated 8.3.2001, issued by the disciplinary authority and also says that by that notice dated 8.3.2001 the reasons for taking a different view were communicated to the petitioner. A copy of the notice dated 8.3.2001 has been enclosed with the writ petition as Annexure ‘6’. After examining the notice we find that the notice only mentions the ‘conclusion’ that for excess expenditure the petitioner is guilty. No reasons in support of this ‘conclusion’, much less any reason for taking a view different from the enquiry officer, have been mentioned in the notice. The enquiry officer, in his report dated 21.10.2000, enclosed as Annexure ‘5’ to the writ petition, has said that it would not be appropriate to hold the petitioner guilty for the excess expenditure which was incurred in unavoidable circumstances. 3. Thus, the notice dated 8.3.2001, in absence of the reasons, does not fulfil the requirement of Rule 9 (2) of the Service Rules and, accordingly, the punishment order dated 24.9.2001 is vitiated due to non-compliance of the procedure and the rules. 4. The writ petition is, accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 24.9.2001 is set aside. However, it will be open to the disciplinary authority to give a fresh notice from the stage of the notice dated 8.3.2001 and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. However, if such action is to be taken, the disciplinary authority must ensure that the final fresh order is passed by it, after following the procedure prescribed in Rule 9, within two months of the date on which a certified copy of this order is presented before the disciplinary authority. However, if such action is to be taken, the disciplinary authority must ensure that the final fresh order is passed by it, after following the procedure prescribed in Rule 9, within two months of the date on which a certified copy of this order is presented before the disciplinary authority. It is made clear that after expiry of two months it will no longer remain open to the disciplinary authority to take any action in respect of the alleged misconduct. After expiry of the aforesaid period of two months if the petitioner realizes that he has been denied certain benefit in respect of his service wrongly, he may make a representation to the appointing authority or his superior authority for the same and if such benefit is not granted, it will also be open to the petitioner to agitate the matter further, including by way of writ petition. ————