ORDER The petitioner was an employee of the then Karnataka Electricity Board, now known as Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short, 'the Corporation') for the last over 30 years. He has been a Junior Engineer since 1994. During March 1997, when he was discharging his duty as an in-charge Assistant Engineer (Elec,), he had furnished Current transformer ratio (C.T. ratio) of R.R. No. TP-38/1 running in the mill of one Ganapathi Shetty of M/s. Mahaganapathi Rice Mill, Talaguppa as 50/5=K-10. It was found by calibration report of the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec,), M.T. Sub-division, Shimoga that the C.T. ratio of the said installation is 75/5=K-15 as existing from the data of installation. According to the Corporation, it has sustained a pecuniary loss to an extent of Rs. 82,893/- for the period between March 1997 to May 1998. 2. The Corporation issued a show-cause notice as per Annexure-A, dated 7-9-1998 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him as per the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (for short the 'Regulations') for the aforesaid lapse and incurring revenue loss to the Corporation. The petitioner has sent a reply dated 12-9-1998 stating that the meter testing department of the Corporation, while calibrating the meters found the C.T. ratio as 50/5 instead of 75/5 and after sealing the tamper proof box, wrote with a chalk piece as 50/5 on the box. The petitioner as an in-charge Assistant Engineer went to fix the lighting meter, noted the C.T. ratio as 50/5 as written by testing department and accordingly, reported to the Senior Assistant Revenue Section, KE.B., Jog on 12-3-1997. The petitioner has refuted the other allegations made in the show-cause notice. Again the Corporation has issued a second show-cause notice as per Annexure-C, dated 24-3-1999 stating that due to gross negligence and mischief of the petitioner, it has sustained a pecuniary loss of Rs. 82,893/-. The notice provisionally proposed to impose one or more of the penalties against the petitioner as provided under Regulation 9 and petitioner was given an opportunity to make a representation in that behalf as provided in Regulation 12(1)(a). The petitioner has sent a detailed reply as per Annexure-D, dated 16-4-1999, reiterating the contentions urged in the previous reply. 82,893/-. The notice provisionally proposed to impose one or more of the penalties against the petitioner as provided under Regulation 9 and petitioner was given an opportunity to make a representation in that behalf as provided in Regulation 12(1)(a). The petitioner has sent a detailed reply as per Annexure-D, dated 16-4-1999, reiterating the contentions urged in the previous reply. However, the Corporation has passed an order as per Annexure-E imposing the following penalties: CD To recover Rs. 82,893/- (Rupees eighty-two thousand eight hundred and ninety-three only) out of the salary at the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per month from July 1999; (ii) To withhold one annual increment next falling due without cumulative effect. 3. The petitioner has filed an appeal under Regulation 25 to the Chief Engineer of the Corporation. The Appellate Authority by the order dated 12-12-2001 has rejected the appeal. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority at Annexure-E and the Appellate Order as per Annexure-H in this writ petition. 4. Sri RL. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner while drawing my attention -to the show-cause notice (Annexure-A) submits that the Disciplinary Authority was determined to impose penalty for the alleged misconduct while issuing the show-cause notice itself. He would argue that the Disciplinary Authority has not followed the procedure prescribed in the Regulations while holding an enquiry. It is further argued that the respondents ought to have held the explanation offered by the petitioner was fair and that he was not responsible for the loss caused to the Corporation and no proceedings ought to have been initiated against him. It is further argued that even while imposing minor penalties, it was incumbent upon the Authority concerned to hold an enquiry. If for any reason the Authority dispenses with the enquiry, an order to that effect ought to have been passed. It is further argued that even the Appellate Authority has mechanically dismissed the appeal while confirming the order of the Superintending Engineer. Learned Counsel would conclude by submitting that the entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated by error of jurisdiction. 5. On the other hand, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation has justified the orders impugned. He submits that holding regular department enquiry is not necessary in every case, particularly when the department is imposing a minor penalty. 6. Learned Counsel would conclude by submitting that the entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated by error of jurisdiction. 5. On the other hand, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation has justified the orders impugned. He submits that holding regular department enquiry is not necessary in every case, particularly when the department is imposing a minor penalty. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments made by the learned Counsel at the Bar. 7. It is the common case of the parties that the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 provides for holding disciplinary enquiry against the employees of the Corporation. Part V of the Regulation classifies the nature of penalties that may be imposed on the Corporation employees. Withholding of increments with or without cumulative effect and recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by negligence are classified as minor penalties. Part VI of the Regulations deals with the procedure for imposing penalties. Regulation 11(2) states that whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour against the Corporation employee, it may itself inquire into or appoint under the Regulations an authority to inquire into the truth thereof. Regulation 12 lays down the procedure for imposing minor penalties. It states amongst others, that subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 11-A, no order imposing on a Corporation employee any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv-a) of Regulation 9 shall be made except after informing the employee in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct of misbehaviour on which it is proposed to take action and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal. Regulation 12(1)(b) states that enquiry has to be held in the manner laid down in sub-regulations (3) to (23) of Regulation 11, in every case in which Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that such enquiry is necessary. 8. First, let me consider the contentions relating to the show-cause notice (Annexure-A). The adherence to the principles of natural justice is recognised by all civilised States as of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining. disputes between the parties. These principles are well-settled. 8. First, let me consider the contentions relating to the show-cause notice (Annexure-A). The adherence to the principles of natural justice is recognised by all civilised States as of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining. disputes between the parties. These principles are well-settled. The first and the foremost principles is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. Notice is regarded as the minimum obligatory condition. 9. A notice issued as a part of natural justice must be precise and unambiguous. It must give a plain statement of the thing claimed to be wrong so that the respondent may be put upon his defence. It should apprise the party determinatively the case he has to meet. The party to be affected must have a reasonable opportunity to know the claims of the opposing party and to meet them. The form and adequacy of notice may vary according to the nature of the proceedings. There is a distinction between a situation where the statute expressly imposes the requirement of notice and a situation where the statute is silent but the authority is required to observe natural justice. In the former case, the issue of notice is mandatory and it goes to the jurisdiction of the authority. Even in cases where there was no rule which required the issue of formal notice, the non-issue of notice will vitiate the proceedings if it has prejudiced the case of the individual. 10. Regulation 12(1)(a) states that no order imposing on an employee any minor penalty be made except after informing the concerned employee in writing the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal. Thus, the notice should contain the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and the proposal to take action against him. A reading of the show-cause (Annexure-A) gives an impression that the Disciplinary Authority has already come to a conclusion that the petitioner has committed the misconduct/misbehaviour alleged against him. The notice in my view is not in conformity with the statutory provision. 11. The second contention pertains to the procedure followed while holding an enquiry. A reading of the show-cause (Annexure-A) gives an impression that the Disciplinary Authority has already come to a conclusion that the petitioner has committed the misconduct/misbehaviour alleged against him. The notice in my view is not in conformity with the statutory provision. 11. The second contention pertains to the procedure followed while holding an enquiry. The Regulations are clear that for imposing minor penalty, an enquiry would be necessary only in case the Disciplinary Authority considered it to be so and records its opinion in the express terms on the issue. Needless to say that while considering any such question of either holding or dispensing with an enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority was bound to consider in a fair and objective manner not only the nature of charges levelled against the employees but also the nature of defence set up by him. In the present case no enquiry has been held as contemplated in sub-regulations (3) to (23) of Regulation 11. The respondents have not produced any material to show that the Disciplinary Authority had applied its mind to the question of either holding or dispensing with the conduct of enquiry as envisaged as per the relevant Regulations into the allegations made against the petitioner. In Ankappa v Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore and Others1, this Court was considering a similar Regulation. It has been held thus: "In other words, before even a minor penalty could be imposed it is obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to consider the question of holding or dispensing with an enquiry into the allegations made against the delinquent employees. An enquiry would become unnecessary only in case the Disciplinary Authority considered it to be so and recorded its opinion in express terms on the said issue. Needless to say that while considering any such question of either holding or dispensing with an enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority was bound to consider in a fair and objective manner not only the nature of the charges levelled against the employees but also the nature of the defence set up by him. There is therefore no escape from the conclusion that the Disciplinary Authority had palpably failed in the discharge of the obligation cast upon it under Regulation 22-B and in proceeding to impose a punishment without recording a finding that the holding of an enquiry was unnecessary. There is therefore no escape from the conclusion that the Disciplinary Authority had palpably failed in the discharge of the obligation cast upon it under Regulation 22-B and in proceeding to impose a punishment without recording a finding that the holding of an enquiry was unnecessary. The impugned orders are thus unsustainable and have therefore to be quashed". 12. In Food Corporation of India, Hyderabad and Others v A. Prahalada Rao and Another1, relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent, it has been held that holding a regular departmental enquiry is not necessary in every case where the employee disputes his liability. That is not the question involved in this case. The question is whether the Disciplinary Authority has exercised the discretion for dispensing with enquiry for the reasons recorded in express terms. No material has been placed by the Corporation in this regard. Therefore, the enquiry held is not according to law. 13. Now let me consider the contentions of the petitioner with reference to the appellate order. Regulation 25 deals with consideration of appeals. It states that in the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties in Regulation 9, the Appellate Authority shall consider whether the procedure prescribed in the Regulations have been complied with and if not whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice, whether the findings are justified and whether the penalty imposed is excessive, adequate or inadequate. 14. An appeal in legal parlance means the removal of a cause from an inferior or subordinate to a superior Tribunal or forum in order to test and scrutinise the correctness of the impugned decision. It amounts in essence and pith to a complaint to a higher forum that the decision of the subordinate Tribunal is erroneous and therefore liable to be rectified or set right. It is settled position of law that the Appellate Authority in a disciplinary proceedings acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and the order passed by it has to be a reasoned one showing application of mind to the question raised by the appellant and if that is not done, the appellate order is vitiated. 15. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Appellate Authority has not considered the appeal in accordance with Regulation 25. 15. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Appellate Authority has not considered the appeal in accordance with Regulation 25. The Appellate Authority has failed to record a finding as to whether the procedure prescribed in the Regulation has been complied with while imposing penalty and if not whether such non-compliance has resulted in failure of justice. The expression "consider" used in Regulation 25 means the Appellate Authority must record its reasons as provided in the Regulations while dealing with the appeal. In my view, the appellate order is also not in conformity with the law. 16. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the authorities concerned have to reconsider the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. I do not propose to quash the show-cause notice-Annexure-A. However, the said notice should be treated as only a statement containing the imputations of misconduct/misbehaviour and proposal to take action against the petitioner for the reasons stated therein. Further, the Disciplinary Authority has observed in the impugned order that if the penalty amount is received from the consumer, the recovery should be stopped forthwith and the entire amount recovered from the salary of the petitioner may be refunded to him. Therefore, if the respondents have recovered penalty amount from the consumer, petitioner is entitled for refund of the amount deducted from his salary towards penalty to that extent. 17. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The second show-cause notice proposing to impose penalties dated 24-3-1999 (Annexure-C), the order passed by the Superintendent Engineer (Elec,), dated 26-6-1999 (Annexure-E) and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 12-12-2001 (Annexure-H) are hereby quashed; (ii) Petitioner is granted fimr weeks' time from the date of receipt of copy of this order to file additional objections to the show-cause notice at Annexure-A, if he so desires; (iii) Respondents are directed to reconsider the matter from the stage of filing additional objections as directed above and pass fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above; (iv) The respondent-authorities are directed to refund the Penal to amount deducted from the salary of the petitioner if the same has been recovered from M/s. Mahaganapathi Rice Mill at Talagoppa. No costs.