JUDGMENT : Aggrieved of the penalty order dated 10.10.2006 and the appellate order dated 27.09.2007, the petitioner who was proceeded against in a departmental proceeding vide order dated 04.05.2006, has approached this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, while the petitioner was posted as Head Assistant in the Sub-Divisional Office, Lohardaga, a show-cause notice dated 18.02.2006 was issued seeking explanation from him on the allegation of interpolation in the record. He was placed under suspension on 08.03.2006. The chargememo dated 24.04.2006 was served upon him. Specific charge framed against the petitioner was of overwriting and interpolation in the records and committing forgery, fraud and cheating. On conclusion of the departmental enquiry an enquiry report dated 05.08.2006 was submitted and the petitioner was issued a second show-cause notice on 30.08.2006, to which he replied which was received in the office of the disciplinary authority on 13.09.2006. The disciplinary authority vide its order dated 09.10.2006 inflicted the following penalty : (i) stoppage of six increments with cumulative effect. (ii) denial of full pay and other allowances under Rule 97 (2) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, and (iii) debarment from future promotion. 3. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed by the appellate order dated 21.08.2007. 4. Referring to the penalty order dated 10.10.2006 and the decisions in “Dr. Ananda Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others” reported in 2002 (1) JCR 229 (Jhr) and “S.P. Malhotra Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others” reported in (2013) 7 SCC 251 , the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the penalty order is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of rules of natural justice. It is contended that the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer has failed to supply its disagreement note to the petitioner which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner in defending himself. It is further contended that the penalty order being a non-speaking order is liable to be quashed on that count alone. 5. Ms. Ruchi Rampuria, the learned State counsel, however, supports the orders passed by the departmental authorities contending that interference with the penalty order passed in a departmental proceeding is only an exception and noninterference is the rule. 6. In “Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others Vs. 5. Ms. Ruchi Rampuria, the learned State counsel, however, supports the orders passed by the departmental authorities contending that interference with the penalty order passed in a departmental proceeding is only an exception and noninterference is the rule. 6. In “Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others Vs. B. Karunakar and Others” reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 , it has been held that the order of punishment stands vitiated in case the reasons for disagreement with the enquiry report has not been supplied to the delinquent officer. The law laid down in ECIL has been reiterated in “Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Kunj Behari Misra” reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 and again in “S.P. Malhotra Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others” reported in (2013) 7 SCC 751. A reading of the enquiry report dated 05.08.2006 would reveal that interpolation in record by changing the Plot Number and Area (Rakwa) has been found established, however, signature of any person over there was not found. The enquiry officer has noticed in paragraph no. 8 of the report that the delinquent-petitioner admitted his guilt in writing before the Sub-Divisional Officer however, in the departmental proceeding he took a plea that the record was accessible to the advocate, clerk and peons and interpolation in the record has been done to defame him. The enquiry officer has recorded a finding that custody of the record was with the petitioner, and even if it is assumed that the petitioner has not done cutting/overwriting, he cannot escape the charge of dereliction of duty and negligence in keeping the records. The enquiry officer recommended minor punishment to the delinquent. The disciplinary authority has inflicted penalty of stoppage of six increments with cumulative effect which is a major penalty. 7. In the above facts, contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that while disagreeing with the recommendation of the enquiry officer for imposition of minor penalty, the disciplinary authority has not supplied the reasons for disagreement. This contention is untenable. An enquiry officer is not the competent authority to recommend the nature and quantum of punishment. Imposition of punishment is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the departmental authorities, that is, disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority. This contention is untenable. An enquiry officer is not the competent authority to recommend the nature and quantum of punishment. Imposition of punishment is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the departmental authorities, that is, disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority. An enquiry officer is not the departmental authority and while so, recommendation by the enquiry officer in the enquiry report dated 05.08.2006 for imposing a minor punishment to the petitioner is beyond his jurisdiction and thus, inconsequential. The enquiry report does not exonerate the petitioner from the charges framed against him and the disciplinary authority has therefore, inflicted penalty of stoppage of six increments with cumulative effect. The appellate authority has interfered with the penalty order dated 10.10.2006 partly and quashed the punishment of debarment from future promotions. A reading of the enquiry report and the penalty order dated 10.10.2006 does not disclose disagreement of the disciplinary authority with a favourable finding recorded by the enquiry officer. The judgment in “Dr. Ananda Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others ” reported in 2002 (1) JCR 229 (Jhr) and “S.P. Malhotra Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others” reported in (2013) 7 SCC 251 are thus not applicable in the facts of the case. 8. Another ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the penalty order is a cryptic order. On a bare reading of the penalty order which records the necessary facts; institution of the departmental enquiry, suspension of the petitioner submission of the enquiry report, issuance of show-cause notice etc. and the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, does not disclose non-application of mind by the disciplinary authority. A penalty order must not be a compendium of all the facts and evidences led in the departmental enquiry. It is sufficient compliance of rules of natural justice that the order passed by the disciplinary authority has recorded the foundational facts and the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. The penalty order dated 10.10.2006 satisfies the above requirements in law. 9. Finding no merit in the writ petition, it is hereby dismissed.