JUDGMENT 1. - No one appeared on behalf of respondent-Bank despite service. 2. During, pendency, of proceeding, petitioner died ion 25th February, 1999 and his legal heirs have been brought on record under the orders of this court dated 20th August, 1999. 3. Writ petitioner [Devi Singh] was initially appointed as Clerk in the service of respondent-Bank on 20th August, 1962, was further promoted as Branch Manager. While holding the post of Branch Manager, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 18th June, 1993 in contemplation of departmental inquiry in regard to certain allegations and charge sheet under R. 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services [Classification, Control & Appeal] Rules, 1958 ["CCA/Rules, 1958"] was served upon him on 27th January, 1994 [Ann.2]. In all, 5 charges were levelled and after holding a regular inquiry as per procedure provided under R. 16 of the Rules, the inquiry officer has found only charge no. 2 proved against delinquent. 4. Inquiry officer submitted his report along with conclusion as provided U/r 16(8) of CCA Rules. before disciplinary authority, who being under legal obligation to consider record of inquiry, since was not the inquiry authority to record the finding on each charge as contemplated U/r 16(9) of CCA Rules; however, after examining record of inquiry for reasons to be recorded in writing, either remand the case for further denovo inquiry if it has reason to believe that inquiry already conducted was laconic in some respect or others. 5. However, in the facts of instant' case, the inquiry officer found out of 5 charges, only charge no. 2 proved against the petitioner-delinquent, copy of which was not supplied to him. However, disciplinary authority disagreeing with the finding of inquiry officer found all the five charges proved against delinquent and taking note thereof, inflicted penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 10th July, 1995 [Ann. 13]. 6. Counsel for petitioner submits that after judgment of apex court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1991 (1) SCC 588 , respondents are under an obligation to serve copy of inquiry report before passing order inflicting penalty upon delinquent. In absence whereof, order impugned is bad in law & deserves to be quashed as it is in violation of Art. 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. Counsel further submits that only charge no. In absence whereof, order impugned is bad in law & deserves to be quashed as it is in violation of Art. 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. Counsel further submits that only charge no. 2 was proved against delinquent and disciplinary authority, if disagreed with the finding, was under legal obligation to serve him with show cause notice along with a note of disagreement. In absence whereof, inflicting penalty upon him is in violation of R.16(9) of the Rules. In support of his submission, counsel placed reliance on the judgment of apex court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 (7) SCC 84 . 8. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and as regards supply of inquiry report, it has been averred in Para 6 of reply that petitioner participated in the inquiry throughout and was well aware of all the facts which were involved in this inquiry and he never demanded copy of inquiry report. As such, non-supply of report cannot be said to be fatal. It has been further averred that as regards finding recorded by the disciplinary authority in holding the petitioner guilty in sub-para [d] of Para 14 that the disciplinary authority applied its mind to the charges and he can disagree with the finding of the inquiry officer, provided there is basis for doing so and from the charges it clearly manifests that the authority has applied its mind while taking final decision inflicting penalty upon the delinquent. 9. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent-Bank to assist this court. However, copy of inquiry report dated 11.05.95 has been placed by the petitioner on record along with application that also reveals that except charge no.2, other charges were not found proved by the inquiry officer. 10. I have heard counsel for petitioner and with his assistance examined the material on record. 11. Facts are almost not in dispute. If the inquiry officer after holding inquiry found only charge no. 10. I have heard counsel for petitioner and with his assistance examined the material on record. 11. Facts are almost not in dispute. If the inquiry officer after holding inquiry found only charge no. 2 proved against the delinquent out of 5 charges levelled against him and before disciplinary authority recorded finding of guilt in respect of all the 5 charges, neither served a note of disagreement nor a show cause notice upon him as provided under R.16 (9) of the Rules which clearly contemplates that after record of inquiry is received by the disciplinary authority, the authority has to apply its mind independently and has to record its finding on each charge that clearly postulates that disciplinary authority has to apply its mind inadvertently (sic) while taking its decision based on record of inquiry which has been furnished and placed before him by the inquiring authority under R.16(8) of the Rules. There cannot be any dispute that record of inquiry is a fact finding report and it is well within competence of the disciplinary authority to consider record of inquiry and record its finding on each charge, may agree or may not agree with the finding by the inquiring authority. But, if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the finding of inquiring authority under scheme of rules as contemplated certainly under an obligation to serve a show cause notice to the delinquent along with a note of disagreement before taking any final decision based on the record of, inquiry and that is otherwise also a requirement of principles of natural justice. Since inquiry officer was satisfied with the material that came on record before him and disciplinary authority at a later stage if disagrees with the finding that certainly causes prejudice to the delinquent and requires to be heard before an adverse finding is recorded by the authority. 12. Apex court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra [supra] while examining Regulation 7 (2). of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' [Discipline and Appeal] Regulations, 1977 observed in Para 19, which is reproduced as under: The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7 (2). 12. Apex court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra [supra] while examining Regulation 7 (2). of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' [Discipline and Appeal] Regulations, 1977 observed in Para 19, which is reproduced as under: 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, whenever 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 records 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 finding on the charges framed against the officer." 13. Apex court has also observed that if disciplinary authority disagrees with the finding, he is under an obligation to serve copy of note of disagreement alongwith show cause notice. 14. Indisputably, in the facts of instant case also, neither note of disagreement nor show cause notice was served upon delinquent before disciplinary authority recorded finding of guilt against all the 5 charges and inflicting penalty upon him vide order dated 10th July, 1995, which, in opinion of this court, is in violation of R. 16(9) of the Rules and so also of principles of natural justice. 15. It has been informed to this court that writ petitioner died in July, 1996, more than 13 yrs. have lapsed and delinquent had attained age of superannuation also. It will not be in the interest of justice at this stage that case should be remanded to the disciplinary authority and this court considers appropriate that on account of order of penalty being violative of R. 16(9) of CCA Rules, legal heirs of the deceased are to be made entitled for release of his retrial benefits which became due and payable to him on the date of his retirement in July, 1996. 16. 16. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed. Order inflicting penalty of dismissal dated 10th July, 1995 [Ann. 13] is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to release all his retiral dues which were due and payable to the delinquent writ petitioner Devi Singh on his retirement with interest @9% from the date of retirement till its actual payment. Respondents shall also ensure compliance within three months of its certified copy being furnished to their office. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******