JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J. 1. While serving as Registrar, Health and Assistant Director (Administration), petitioner was placed under suspension vide Memo No. 106 (5) dated 25th January, 2002 on the basis of certain allegations. Suspension was followed by service of charge sheet under Memo No. 692 (5) dated 10th April, 2002 and simultaneously one Dr. D.K. Raman, Deputy Director (Administration) was appointed as the Conducting Officer. Petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. As many as 3 charges were framed against him. While enquiry was being conducted, suspension of the petitioner came to be revoked vide Office Order contained in Memo No. 999 (5) dated 17th June, 2002. The Enquiry Officer submitted his Report after conducting departmental proceedings vide Memo No. 235 dated 16th September, 2002. It is stated that the Enquiry Officer exonerated the Officer from all the three charges for which enquiry was conducted. It is further alleged that the file was placed before the Honble Minister for Health, who recommended for exoneration of the petitioner with a direction that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) recommended by the Enquiry Officer to be recovered from the petitioner and the Cashier be recovered from one Gopal Sharan Sharma, Cashier. The Disciplinary authority, however, issued a second show cause notice dated 27th February, 2003 to the petitioner asking him to show cause why he be not dismissed from service. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order No. 16/sa. SA - 232/2002 k.a. 369 dated 12th May, 2004, whereby petitioner has been demoted from the post of Registrar to the post of Assistant with a further direction that the petitioner shall be entitled to only subsistence allowance for the period of suspension from 25th January, 2002 to 16th June, 2002. This order was challenged before the Appellate Authority. In the meanwhile petitioner has been permanently allocated the State of Jharkhand vide Officer Order No. 265 dated 30th April, 2005 and since then petitioner is working as Assistant in the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order by disagreeing with the Enquiry Report without recording any reasons for such disagreement and without even communicating the reasons to the petitioner in the second show cause. 2. Mr. Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order by disagreeing with the Enquiry Report without recording any reasons for such disagreement and without even communicating the reasons to the petitioner in the second show cause. 2. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further stated that the charge against the petitioner is vague and there is no specific allegation, hence the charge itself is required to be quashed. He has also stated that there is no evidence against him and the order of the Disciplinary Authority is perverse in nature without there being any material against the petitioner. 3. In the counter affidavit filed, it is mentioned that the Disciplinary Authority is not bound to agree with the Enquiry Officer and is the competent authority to pass appropriate orders. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. From the Enquiry Report dated 16th September, 2002 (Annexure-9), it appears that the Enquiry Officer has not recorded any adverse finding against the petitioner but only suggested that recovery of Rs. 5,000/- can be considered from the petitioner and one Gopal Sharan Sharma, who was cashier at the relevant time. From Annexure-10, it appears that the Minister of Health has recorded that Rs. 5,000/- be recovered from the cashier. The second show cause notice dated 02nd September, 2003 (Annexure-11) only require the petitioner to furnish his reply to the Enquiry Report within 15 days and he has been asked to show cause why he be not dismissed from service and also to show cause as to why the Enquiry Report be not accepted on account of negligence of duty, financial irregularities and misuse of administrative powers. There is not even a whisper in the said show cause notice as to whether the Disciplinary authority has applied its mind to the Enquiry Report and has satisfied itself. Even the areas of disagreement and the ground thereof are also not indicated. In the impugned order dated 12th May, 2004, further while referring to the defects, it has only been stated that the Secretary while disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer has opined that it is a case of dismissal. 5. The Appeal before the appellate authority preferred by the petitioner is still pending. In the impugned order dated 12th May, 2004, further while referring to the defects, it has only been stated that the Secretary while disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer has opined that it is a case of dismissal. 5. The Appeal before the appellate authority preferred by the petitioner is still pending. It is settled proposition that the Disciplinary Authority is not bound to accept the Enquiry Report and has right to disagree with it and formulate its own opinion. However, the Disciplinary Authority is under law, bound to issue second show cause notice to the delinquent employee communicating the grounds for such disagreement and seek his response. He is also required to record grounds of disagreement while formulating its opinion. This issue is no more res integra having been considered by the Honble apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra , whereunder the apex Court observed as under: 19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, wherever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it record its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, 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. 6. Following the aforesaid judgment, this Court also in Arvind Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2006 (4) J.L.J.R. 526 observed as under: 8. Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has vehemently argued that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 6. Following the aforesaid judgment, this Court also in Arvind Kumar v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2006 (4) J.L.J.R. 526 observed as under: 8. Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-State, has vehemently argued that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. But she has not been able to convince that this show cause notice fulfils the requirement of Rule 55 i.e. providing an opportunity to defend, as the show cause notice is totally silent as regards the recording of reasons for disagreement with the enquiry report. 7. Impugned order Dated 12th May, 2004 having been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside, consequently penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is also rendered illegal. 8. Since the punishment is not sustainable, the consequential order of the payment of only subsistence allowance during the period of suspension also does not seem to be justified when the charges are not established. There is no valid ground for payment of only subsistence allowance. In view of the legal position, noticed hereinabove this writ petition is allowed and impugned order is hereby quashed. No order as to costs.