JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner (through his legal heirs) has challenged the order dated 23.4.2007 passed by respondent no.1, by which the petitioner is imposed penalty of placing him in basic pay for one month, and a period from 04.10.2006 till passing of order dated 23.04.2007 is treated as suspension. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that: 3. The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable on 21.01.1969. Thereafter, on 17.07.1978, he was promoted as Head Constable. After completion of three years on 01.01.1981 he got promotion as Assistant Sub-Inspector and thereafter, he was further promoted to the post of Police Sub-Inspector on 05.12.1998. 4. By the order 03.10.2006, the petitioner was suspended on the ground that while he was on duty, he did not take any preventive measure though it was conveyed by M.L.A. Mr.Bhavan Bharwad, and because of that disobedience, a scuffle between two groups had taken place. 5. Thereafter, by order dated 26.04.2007 passed by respondent no.1, the petitioner was reinstated in service. The petitioner was suspended contemplating departmental inquiry. The charge-sheet dated 27.11.2006 was issued to the petitioner for the aforesaid alleged misconduct for showing lapses in discharging his duty. The petitioner replied on 30.09.2006 explaining his defence. After the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer vide his report dated 02.04.2007 exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority thereafter issued a show cause notice dated 09.04.2007 disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry Officer' report. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid show cause notice by his letter dated 16.04.2007. The petitioner had stated that the Inquiry Officer exonerated him for the charges levelled against him. After considering reply of the petitioner, by the impugned order dated 23.04.2007, respondent no.1 imposed penalty of placing the petitioner in basic pay for one month and treating his suspension period as such. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before respondent no.2 on 05.06.2007. The appeal of the petitioner was also rejected by the order dated 07.08.2007. The petitioner preferred revision application before respondent no.3 which was also rejected by the order dated 06.11.2007. 6. Learned advocate, Mr. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before respondent no.2 on 05.06.2007. The appeal of the petitioner was also rejected by the order dated 07.08.2007. The petitioner preferred revision application before respondent no.3 which was also rejected by the order dated 06.11.2007. 6. Learned advocate, Mr. P.J.Yagnik appearing for the petitioner has raised a sole contention that the impugned order of penalty is required to be quashed and set aside only on the ground that by disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority has not given an opportunity to the petitioner. He has stated that the disciplinary authority has straightway reversed the findings of the Inquiry Officer and has come to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner are proved. Thus, he has submitted that the entire exercise of issuing a show cause notice is futile. He has stated that the representation or reply filed against the show cause notice was of no consequence as the disciplinary authority had already given tentative reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Authority. Learned advocate, Mr. Yagnik has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Yoginath B. Bagodia Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in A.I.R. 199 SC 372. In view of the aforesaid submissions, he has submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside. He has also stated that the period of suspension is also not to be treated as suspension as the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. 7. Per contra, learned AGP, Mr.Soni has submitted that the impugned order does not deserve any interference of this court as the same is passed after considering the representation of the petitioner. He has submitted that the disciplinary authority has given a show cause notice to the petitioner and after considering his representation, the impugned order is passed. He has stated that in that view of the matter, there cannot be said any procedural lapses on the part of the disciplinary authority in holding the inquiry and the impugned order does not require any interference of this court. 8. Heard the learned advocates of the respective parties at length and perused the entire record of the petition. 9. The established fact of the petition is that the petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer's report dated 02.04.2007. 8. Heard the learned advocates of the respective parties at length and perused the entire record of the petition. 9. The established fact of the petition is that the petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer's report dated 02.04.2007. The disciplinary authority thereafter issued a show cause notice dated 09.04.2007, which contained disagreement to the findings of the Inquiry Officer's report. A perusal of the Show cause notice dated 09.04.2007, will clarify that the disciplinary authority has arrived at a finding holding the charges against the petitioner as proved. After a detailed discussion on the findings of the Inquiry Officer's report, the disciplinary authority has disagreed with the same and held the charges as proved. In my considered opinion the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority is in clear violation of law explicated by the Supreme Court in the case of Yoginath B. Bagodia (Supra), wherein the Supreme Court has observed that: “Where the Disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in favour of the officer of subordinate judiciary and came to the conclusion that the charges against the officer were proved and then merely issued show-cause notice to the officer as to why he should not be dismissed from service, without providing any opportunity of hearing, the subsequent order of dismissal of officer would be invalid as being violative of principles of natural justice. In such case, though along with the show-cause notice, a copy of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer as also the reasons recorded by the Disciplinary Committee for disagreeing with those findings were communicated to the appellant but it was immaterial as he was required to show cause only against the punishment proposed by the Disciplinary Committee which had already taken a final decision that the charges against the appellant were proved. It was not indicated to him that the disciplinary Committee had come only to a “tentative” decision and that he could show cause against that too. It was more so when, on facts of the case disciplinary authority was in error in disagreeing with the findings of Enquiry Officer.” 10. In the case in hand the disciplinary authority has reversed the findings of the Inquiry Officer which were in the favour of the petitioner. The same are reversed without affording an opportunity of hearing. It was more so when, on facts of the case disciplinary authority was in error in disagreeing with the findings of Enquiry Officer.” 10. In the case in hand the disciplinary authority has reversed the findings of the Inquiry Officer which were in the favour of the petitioner. The same are reversed without affording an opportunity of hearing. Thus, the show cause notice was futile as the disciplinary authority had finally recorded the disagreement and held the charges proved against the petitioner before calling upon his explanation. Hence, the impugned order of penalty deserves to be set aside. 11. On additional aspect which calls for consideration is that the authority has imposed minor penalty of placing the petitioner in one month basic pay, and because of the said penalty his entire period of suspension is treated as such. In considered opinion of this Court the same is disproportionate in view of the fact that the Inquiry Officer had already exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. The petitioner cannot be put to loss of treating the entire period suspension as such only because a minor penalty putting him in one month’s basic pay is imposed upon him. His entire period of suspension cannot be treated as suspension in wake of the fact that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. Thus, it appears that only to treat the suspension period as such, he has been imposed minor penalty putting him in basic pay of one month only. The loss of benefits during the suspension period will surpass the penalty imposed upon the petitioner which demonstrates the non application of mind of the disciplinary authority. Hence, the impugned order treating the period of suspension as such calls for interference by this court. 12. In view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order dated 23.04.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are hereby directed to reconsider the suspension period of the petitioner in light of the observations made by this court and pass appropriate order to that effect. Necessary consequential order refixing is pay shall also be passed by the respondents. The entire exercise shall be carried by the respondent authorities within a period of two months from today. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted. (Petition Allowed)