Order : Challenging orders dated 13.09.2010 and 01.08.2012, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the documents on record. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, though the enquiry officer did not find the charges framed against the petitioner proved, the disciplinary authority without issuing show-cause notice and indicating the grounds for disagreeing with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, has inflicted penalty of reduction by one stage in the time-scale with effect from 01.09.2010 for a period of two year and the appellate authority also did not consider the plea raised by the petitioner and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner with a modification that the punishment would be for a period of one year. 4. As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that, though the charge of demanding and accepting illegal gratification has not been found proved by the enquiry officer, the alleged amount of illegal gratification has been found in the drawer of the petitioner and therefore, the disciplinary authority chose to differ with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and awarded the punishment as noticed above. 5. From the facts narrated in the writ petition, it appears that a charge-memo was issued to the petitioner on 23.06.2007 on the allegation of demanding illegal gratification of Rs. 1000/-. An enquiry was conducted into the matter and an enquiry report dated 25.11.2008 has been submitted in which the charge of demanding and accepting illegal gratification has not been found proved. The disciplinary authority passed order dated 13.09.2010 whereby a punishment of reduction by one stage in the time-scale for a period of 2 years has been passed. In the writ petition the petitioner has specifically stated that the disciplinary authority never communicated the 'note of dissent' to the petitioner. I find that law on the issue is well settled. In a case where the enquiry officer records a finding adverse to the delinquent employee, it has been held that the delinquent employee is entitled to have an opportunity to submit his representation to the findings in the enquiry report. I find that law on the issue is well settled. In a case where the enquiry officer records a finding adverse to the delinquent employee, it has been held that the delinquent employee is entitled to have an opportunity to submit his representation to the findings in the enquiry report. In a case where the enquiry officer records a finding favourable to the delinquent employee, it is more appropriate that the disciplinary authority must indicate if he chooses to differ, the grounds of disagreement with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer so that the delinquent employee can make an effective representation. If such a course is not adopted by the disciplinary authority it would be in violation of principles of natural justice. I find from the record of the case that even in the appellate order, it is recorded that the disciplinary authority never communicated the 'note of dissent' to the petitioner. 6. In “Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharastra and another” reported in (1999) 7 SCC 739 , the Ho'ble Supreme Court has held as under, “31. ................... If the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are in favour of the delinquent and it has been held that the charges are not proved, it is all the more necessary to give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee before reversing those findings. The formation of opinion should be tentative and not final. It is at this stage that the delinquent employee should be given an opportunity of hearing after he is informed of the reasons on the basis of which the disciplinary authority has proposed to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer. This is in consonance with the requirement of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as it provides that a person shall not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. So long as a final decision is not taken in the matter, the enquiry shall be deemed to be pending. Mere submission of findings to the disciplinary authority does not bring about the closure of the enquiry proceedings. So long as a final decision is not taken in the matter, the enquiry shall be deemed to be pending. Mere submission of findings to the disciplinary authority does not bring about the closure of the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry proceedings would come to an end only when the findings have been considered by the disciplinary authority and the charges are either held to be not proved or found to be proved and in that event punishment is inflicted upon the delinquent. That being so, the “right to be heard” would be available to the delinquent upto the final stage....................” 7. In “Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Misra”, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “17. …........ The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority.” 8. In “S.P. Malhotra Vs. Punjab national Bank and Others”, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 251 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “16. The View taken by this Court in the aforesaid Kunj Behari Misra case has consistently been approved and followed as is evident from the judgments in Yoginath D. Bagde V. State of Maharashtra, SBI V. K.P. Narayanan Kutty, J.A. Naiksatam v. High Court of Bombay, P.D. Agrawal v. SBI and Ranjit Singh v. Union of India.” 9. The View taken by this Court in the aforesaid Kunj Behari Misra case has consistently been approved and followed as is evident from the judgments in Yoginath D. Bagde V. State of Maharashtra, SBI V. K.P. Narayanan Kutty, J.A. Naiksatam v. High Court of Bombay, P.D. Agrawal v. SBI and Ranjit Singh v. Union of India.” 9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned orders are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority for taking a decision afresh after issuing second show-cause notice to the petitioner indicating the grounds for disagreeing with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer within a period of 12 weeks from the receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. This writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.