ORDER : A. N. Venugopala Gowda, J. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Manager (Legal) in the respondent -Corporation in the year 1988 and was promoted as Manager (Legal) in the year 2003. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice on 10.06.2005 in the matter of financial assistance extended to M/s. Precitech Engineering, a partnership firm. A reply was submitted on 06.08.2005. Charge-sheet dated 28.09.2007 was served upon the petitioner containing the following charges ; (i) That the interim document is obtained based on the certified copy issued by the Sub-Registrar. However, you did not ensure collection of the same subsequently. (ii) That failure on your part to collect the original sale deed from the loanee has resulted in the Corporation having no collateral security to recover the huge liability from the loanee. The petitioner submitted his reply on 08.11.2007 and denied all the allegations. As the Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the reply, a retired District and Sessions Judge was appointed to conduct Disciplinary Inquiry. After conducting and concluding inquiry, Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 26.07.2010 exonerating the petitioner from the charges. Inquiry Officer recorded the finding that the case against the petitioner as unproved. Managing Director of the Corporation served show-cause notice dated 27.01.2011 and the petitioner was notified that the Board of Directors after protracted discussions on the subject disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Copy of the Board proceedings dated 23.11.2010 and the Inquiry Officer- s report was enclosed to the said show-cause notice. Explanation to the said show-cause notice was submitted by the petitioner on 05.04.2011. The Board of Management of the Corporation having arrived at the decision that there is grave irregularity committed by the petitioner and thus jeo-pardised the interest of the Corporation, resolved to impose the penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect and a communication was served in that regard on the petitioner. Assailing the penalty imposed and to quash the order dated 01.08.2011, as at Annexure-A, this petition was filed. 2. Sri. Ajoy Kumar Patil, learned advocate Vehemently contended that there is breach of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 11-A by the respondent. Assailing the penalty imposed and to quash the order dated 01.08.2011, as at Annexure-A, this petition was filed. 2. Sri. Ajoy Kumar Patil, learned advocate Vehemently contended that there is breach of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 11-A by the respondent. He submitted that the Inquiry Officer who conducted and completed the Inquiry having exonerated the petitioner from all the charges and the report submitted being a well considered report, upon appreciation of the entire material placed on record of the inquiry, no reasons for disagreement was made out and furnished to the petitioner, to make his representation. He further submitted that the format vide Annexure-1, enclosed to the show-cause notice dated 27.01.2011 does not meet the mandatory requirement of sub-rule (3) of Rule 11-A of the Rules. He contended that the petitioner having submitted the explanation on 05.04.2011, without any application of mind, mechanically the penalty was imposed. He contended that the respondent having failed to consider the case in the correct perspective, impugned order suffers from fatal defects and the findings entered unsupported by any evidence being perverse, there is gross miscarriage of justice. He submitted that there is no due and proper application of mind and the order passed is bad in law, as the reply submitted has not received consideration in accordance with law. 3. Per contra, Sri. Gururaj Joshi, learned advocate defended the impugned orders by contending that there was no requirement for serving the reasons recorded to the petitioner and that the order dated 07.12.2011 being justified, no interference is called for. Alternatively, he submitted that even if there is any infirmity in the order passed against the petitioner, liberty be reserved to the respondent for doing the needful afresh. 4. Perused the record and considered the rival contentions. Point for consideration is, whether there is flaw in the matter of imposition of punishment by the respondent? 5. Rule 11-A is with regard to action on the Inquiry Report. 4. Perused the record and considered the rival contentions. Point for consideration is, whether there is flaw in the matter of imposition of punishment by the respondent? 5. Rule 11-A is with regard to action on the Inquiry Report. It provides for four kinds of orders to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority after receiving the report of the Inquiry i.e., by recording the reasons : (i) Remit the case to the Inquiry Authority; (ii) Record reasons for disagreement and record its own findings on the charges, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purposes and communicate the reasons for such disagreement; (iii) Impose one or more of the penalties specified in Rule 8; (iv) Exonerate the employee. 6. Rule 11-A (3) makes it clear that where the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge, it must record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purposes and communicate the reasons for such disagreement to the employee to make his representation if any in the matter and consider the same before taking any decision to impose the penalty. Sub-Rules (3) and (4) of Rule 11-A have to be read together. When so read, it is clear that they have been made only with a view to provide an opportunity to the employee to represent against the findings, which can be termed as ' tentative' of Disciplinary Authority, to the extent they are adverse to him. If explanation is submitted, it becomes mandatory for the Disciplinary Authority to meaningfully consider the explanation and pass order in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 11-A (4). 7. The respondent is an instrumentality of the State and is expected to act in fairness by following the principles of natural justice, meaning thereby, that in case an oral hearing is not allowed, the explanation submitted should receive due consideration of the Disciplinary Authority. 8. Annexure-1 enclosed to the show-cause notice dated 27.01.2011 (proceedings of Board Meeting held on 23.11.2010), in the form of a table with headings "Gist of Charges; Findings of I.O.; Observations of the Board" and the penultimate portion with a heading ' General observations of the Board- as rightly contended by Sri. 8. Annexure-1 enclosed to the show-cause notice dated 27.01.2011 (proceedings of Board Meeting held on 23.11.2010), in the form of a table with headings "Gist of Charges; Findings of I.O.; Observations of the Board" and the penultimate portion with a heading ' General observations of the Board- as rightly contended by Sri. Ajoy Kumar Patil does not comply with sub-Rule (3) of Rule 11-A, as the Disciplinary Authority has not recorded its reasons for the disagreement with the findings of the I.O. and has not recorded its own findings charge-wise. The Table-Annexure-1 appears to be para-wise comments and not recording of the Disciplinary Authority reasons for such disagreement nor the findings of the Disciplinary Authority charge-wise. Thus, Annexure-1 to the show-cause notice dated 27.01.2011 is only a farce of compliance. 9. There is no dispute with regard to submission of reply dated 05.04.2011 by the petitioner to the show-cause notice dated 27.01.2011 served on him by the Managing Director. The order dated 01.08.2011 makes it clear that the Disciplinary Authority by taking note of the said explanation of the petitioner has concluded as follows: "The Board perused the representation dated 04.03.2011 given by the CSO. After detailed deliberations, the Board felt that the representation given by the CSO cannot be accepted. The Board noted that due to the casual approach of the CSO in not collecting the original sale deed, the Corporation could not take timely recovery action in sale of primary assets in the form of land and building and ultimately the same has to be sold on as is where is basis without the title deeds of the property. Due to this, the liability in the account is to the tune of Rs.12.52 crore as on 10.03.2011 and chances of further recovery in this case is reported to be remote." It is apparent that the said explanation of the petitioner has not received meaningful consideration and has been brushed aside without assigning any valid reasons. There is neither appreciation of the evidence nor recording of reasons in support of the conclusion. Thus, the Disciplinary Authority has faultered in discharge of its duty in terms of Rule 11-A and illegally imposed the punishment on the petitioner. 10. There is neither appreciation of the evidence nor recording of reasons in support of the conclusion. Thus, the Disciplinary Authority has faultered in discharge of its duty in terms of Rule 11-A and illegally imposed the punishment on the petitioner. 10. Despite exoneration of the petitioner by Inquiring Authority, without recording any reasons for disagreement with the findings recorded by the Inquiring Authority and recording the reasons of the Disciplinary Authority on the two charges levelled against the petitioner, the aforesaid order was passed and the petitioner imposed with the penalty, which is arbitrary. The action of the respondent after receipt of the Inquiry Report being in breach of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 11-A, the impugned order is illegal. 11. In Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 : ( AIR 1998 SC 2713 ), Apex Court by considering Regulation 7(2) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees-(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 which did not provide for giving of any notice before Disciplinary Authority differed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer, has held as follows: "The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer." Emphasis supplied 12. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer." Emphasis supplied 12. In Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 7 SCC 739 : ( AIR 1999 SC 3734 ), Apex Court noticing the scope of Rule 9(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1979 which did not specifically provide for the Disciplinary Authority to give an opportunity to the petitioner before differing with the finding, has held as follows : "But the requirement of 'hearing' in consonance with the principles of natural justice even at that stage has to be read into Rule 9(2) and it has to be held that before the Disciplinary authority finally disagrees with the findings of the enquiring authority, it would give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer so that he may have the opportunity to indicate that the findings recorded by the enquiring authority do not suffer from any error and that there was no occasion to take a different view. The disciplinary authority, at the same time, has to communicate to the delinquent officer the ' 'Tentative' reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiring authority so that the delinquent officer may further indicate that the reasons on the basis of which the disciplinary authority proposes to disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiring authority are not germane and the finding of ' not guilty- already recorded by the enquiring authority was not liable to be interfered with." (Emphasis supplied) 13. In the case of Ranjit Singh v. Union of India reported in (2006) 4 SCC 153 : ( AIR 2006 SC 3685 ), in the Departmental Proceedings, the Inquiry Officer submitted report exonerating the appellant from the charges. The Disciplinary Authority however differed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and issued a memorandum stating the reasons for disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer and called upon the appellant to make a representation in defence to the ground of disagreement before a final decision is taken. Appellant sought 10 days- time and the same was allowed. Again he prayed for further time and the same was also allowed. Appellant sought 10 days- time and the same was allowed. Again he prayed for further time and the same was also allowed. Another application was filed seeking extension of time which was not granted as the Disciplinary Authority already prepared the order. Considering the matter in the aforesaid background, Apex Court has held as follows: "22. In view of the aforementioned decisions of this Court, it is now well settled that the principles of natural justice were required to be complied with by the disciplinary authority. He was also required to apply his mind to the materials on record. The Enquiry Officer arrived at findings which were in favour of the appellant. Such findings were required (sic sought) to be overturned by the disciplinary authority. It is in that view of the matter, the power sought to be exercised by the disciplinary authority, although not as that of an Appellate Authority, but is akin thereto. The inquiry report was in favour of the appellant but the disciplinary authority proposed to differ with such conclusions and, thus, apart from complying with the principles of natural justice it was obligatory on his part, in the absence of any show-cause filed by the appellant, to analyse the materials on record afresh....." (Emphasis supplied) 14. In Mathura Prasad v. Union of India, (2007) 1 SCC 437 : ( AIR 2007 SC 381 ), it was held, that when an employee by reason of alleged act of misconduct is sought to be deprived of the livelihood, the procedure laid down under the Sub-Rules is required to be strictly followed and it has been further held as follows: "19.....It is now well settled that a judicial review would lie even if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If statutory authority uses its power in a manner not provided for in the statute or passes an order without application of mind, judicial review would be maintainable. Even an error of fact for sufficient reasons may attract the principles of judicial review." 15. In the present case, Disciplinary Authority has not communicated to the petitioner the 'tentative reasons' for disagreeing with the findings of Inquiring Authority nor has ' recorded its own findings' on the charges levelled against the petitioner i.e., when the communication dated 27.01.2011 was served on the petitioner. In the present case, Disciplinary Authority has not communicated to the petitioner the 'tentative reasons' for disagreeing with the findings of Inquiring Authority nor has ' recorded its own findings' on the charges levelled against the petitioner i.e., when the communication dated 27.01.2011 was served on the petitioner. Thus, there is breach of sub-Rules (3) and (4) of Rule 11-A, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently, there is flaw in the decision making process by Disciplinary Authority at both stages i.e., under Rules 11-A (3) and 11-A (4). 16. In the result, petition is allowed and the impugned order as at Annexure-A quashed. Liberty is reserved to the respondent to proceed afresh against the petitioner, if found necessary, i.e., from the stage the Inquiry Report was received by keeping in view the observations made supra. 17. No costs.