JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral):-The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer was appointed. He submitted the report vide letter dated 15.2.1993 to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Vide office order dated 30.6.1995, the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages in the time scale of pay and recovery of Rs. 20,874.15 paise was imposed. 2. Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate submits that it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to issue show cause notice to the petitioner before disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. This position is not disputed by the leaned Senior Additional Advocate General. The settled law is that if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, he has to arrive at a tentative conclusion and thereafter he has to call upon the delinquent to show cause. The disciplinary authority thereafter has to pass fresh orders after taking into consideration the reply/objections filed against the tentative decision taken by him. In the present case this process has not at all been followed by the disciplinary authority before disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer. 3. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The office order dated 30.6.1995 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and set aside. The disciplinary authority is directed to arrive at a tentative conclusion and thereafter issue a show cause notice to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today and only thereafter by taking into consideration the reply/objections filed to the show cause notice final order shall be passed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.