JUDGMENT : The petitioner is employed as the Assistant Salesman by Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weaver’s Cooperative Society Limited, the first respondent herein. When he handed over charge to another incumbent, it was found that there was deficit of stock worth Rs.6,388.75ps. Therefore, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 12.04.2006. The petitioner submitted explanation and not satisfied with that, the first respondent society appointed an enquiry officer. A detailed enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted on 16.08.2007. It was held that the petitioner on the one hand and the Branch Manager on the other are equally responsible for the shortage of the material. After taking the same into account, directions were issued requiring the petitioner and Mr. M.V. Bhadraiah to deposit half of the amount each, vide memos dated 25.09.2007 and 15.10.2007. About two years thereafter, Vice Chairman and Managing Director reopened the matter at the instance of Bhadraiah and one Mr. A.R. Rudra Rao, Managers of the Showrooms. After hearing them, he issued a final show-cause notice dated 07.08.2009 holding that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are not correct and that the petitioner alone is liable for the entire shortage of the stock. The petitioner was required to explian as to why suitable punishment shall not be imposed against him. The petitioner submitted explanation, whereafter the first respondent passed orders on 19.09.2009 imposing punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect and also recovery of the entire deficit amount. The same is challenged in this writ petition on several grounds. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that though initially the liability for shortage of the stock was imposed equally on the petitioner and Bhadraiah, Vice Chairman and Managing Director has disagreed with the report of the enquiry officer and the impugned order dated 19.09.2009 was passed after following the prescribed procedure. Heard Sri B.M. Patro, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ch. Jagannatha Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. On finding that there was shortage of stock worth Rs. 66,388.75 ps, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.04.2006. He submitted explanation stating that he is not at all responsible for that. The disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner and a domestic enquiry was ordered. On finding that there was shortage of stock worth Rs. 66,388.75 ps, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.04.2006. He submitted explanation stating that he is not at all responsible for that. The disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner and a domestic enquiry was ordered. In the report dated 16.08.2007, the enquiry officer found that the petitioner and the Manager of the Branch, viz., Bhadraiah are equally responsible for the shortage of the stock. It was always competent for the disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer. In case, he wanted to disagree, he ought to have issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner requiring him to explain as to why different view be not taken on the matter, duly indicating the basis therefor. It is only thereafter, further steps could have been taken. In the instant case, the report of the enquiry officer was not only accepted but also the punitive steps against the petitioner and Bhadraiah were directed, vide proceedings dated 25.09.2007 and 15.10.2007 respectively. With that, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner assumed finality. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director reopened the matter two years thereafter. Here again, in case he is vested with the power to reopen the proceedings at that stage, the only measure open for him was to require the petitioner to explain as to why the findings recorded by the enquiry officer be not disagreed. He was also under obligation to state the reasons therefor. Instead, he arrived at the conclusion that the report of the enquiry officer be not accepted and that the entire responsibility be fastened upon the petitioner alone without giving a notice to the petitioner. The show-cause notice dated 07.08.2009 does not fit into exercise provided for in law. Strictly speaking, it cannot be treated as show-cause notice because the conclusions on crucial aspects were arrived at by the Vice Chairman much before. The relevant paragraphs in the show-cause notice dated 07.08.2009 read as under: “During the personal hearing on 14.07.2009, the said individuals have given deposition and furnished documentary evidence which have been examined with reference to Domestic Enquiry report. The relevant paragraphs in the show-cause notice dated 07.08.2009 read as under: “During the personal hearing on 14.07.2009, the said individuals have given deposition and furnished documentary evidence which have been examined with reference to Domestic Enquiry report. After having gone through the DE report, the depositions received and the documentary evidence produced during the personal hearing, the Competent Authority has observed that Sri Ch.Annaji Rao, was responsible for hiking the retail price in the stocks that were transferred from the Reduction Sale Counter to the other (2) shops, as such Sri M.V. Bhadraiah andA.Rudra Rao, are not responsible for any irregularity and in fact they informed the issue of hiking the retail price of the stocks to the Inspecting Officer and the Divisional Marketing Officer, Srikakulam which was verified and found correct. The Competent Authority has therefore disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer with regard to involvement of Sri M.V. Bhadraiah, Manager and Sri A. Rudra Rao, manager in the deficit and held Sri Ch. Annaji Rao, the charged employee responsible for the entire deficit amount of Rs.66,388.75ps. Hence, he is directed to remit the entire deficit amount of Rs.66,388.75ps besides submitted his explanation within (15) days from the receipt of this Final Show Cause Notice as to why suitable punishment should not be imposed against him. If his explanation is not received within the time it will be construed that he has no explanation to offer and action will be taken for disposal of the charge framed against him basing on the merits of the case without any further notice.” From a perusal of the above, it becomes clear that not only the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were differed by the Vice Chairman but also the petitioner was held liable to pay the entire amount. It is a misnomer to call it as show-cause notice. The only opportunity given to the petitioner was to explain as to why further punishment be not imposed upon him. That punishment was imposed through the impugned order dated 19.09.2009. The whole exercise is illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law apart from violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.09.2009 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.