JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Annexure-6 dated 5.6.2003 is the order of punishment passed against the petitioner. He challenges the said decision on a legal objection that despite the enquiry officer giving a clean chit to the petitioner the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment and that too by giving a composite notice of disagreement as well as second show cause clubbed together as would be evident from Annexure-4. There is categorical statement in paragraph-23 of the writ application that no separate notice of disagreement was given and based on Annexure-4 the punishment order has come to visit him. 3. There is no denial of the said averment made in the writ application in the counter affidavit. It is evident from perusal of Annexure-4 that composite notice was issued to the petitioner on which the order of punishment has been passed. 4. The law is well settled in this regard upto Honble Apex Court that composite notice is not a notice in the eye of law. The disciplinary authority has to first give notice to the petitioner on the point of disagreement and then the question of issuance of second show cause would arise or punishment can come to be imposed. 5. Petitioner has made out a case for interference in view of the anomaly pointed out on the face of the record. Impugned order i.e. Annexure-6 dated 5.6.2003 is quashed. 6. The matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority with freedom to issue a notice to the petitioner on point of disagreement first and based on the response of the petitioner, appropriate follow up action may be taken. Since it is an old matter, respondents would be well advised to expedite the matter. 7. This writ application is allowed with the above direction.