ORDER : Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following reliefs :- "(i) The order dated 18.02.2014 (Annexure-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents may be directed to grant all the consequential service and monetary benefits. (ii) Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. The petitioner was working on the post of Conductor. He was given a charge-sheet dated 23.12.2010, whereby an allegation was levelled that on 13.07.2010 when he was rendering his duties at Delhi-Jaipur route in a Bus bearing registration No. 28-PA-0343 on inspection at Chandwaji, all the twenty-two passengers were found to be travelling with valid tickets but the value of more than Rs. 75/- were found to be fake. The inquiry report was accordingly prepared and submitted by the Depot Manager Head Office on 28.01.2013, which absolved the petitioner of the charges. The respondents, however, re-inquired the issue and the same report to this effect was also filed on 21.03.2013, which also absolved the petitioner. 3. It is an undisputed fact that the inquiry reports dt. 28.01.2013 and dt. 31.07.2013 both absolved the petitioner. The disciplinary authority, however, disagreed with both the inquiry reports dated 28.01.2013 and dt. 31.07.2013 and passed a punitive order on 18.02.2014 stopping of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Kailash Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the disciplinary authority, if at all wanted to take a reverse view to the inquiry reports then such disagreement should have been recorded with the reasons and a prior notice of disagreement should have been given. 5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Mamdin Khan Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 551/2004) decided on 24.03.2005. 6. The aforesaid order reads as follows :- "1. Challenge in the present D.B. Civil Special Appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.2.2004 vide which CWP No. 1188/98 filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2. Briefly put, the facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 6.8.81. He challenged the order aforesaid by a civil suit which was allowed. 2. Briefly put, the facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 6.8.81. He challenged the order aforesaid by a civil suit which was allowed. Appeals carried against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were dismissed. However, the respondent Corporation was given opportunity to hold fresh enquiry after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequent upon fresh enquiry the charges levelled against the petitioner were held not substantiated but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and after giving a show cause notice to the petitioner, held that the charges that were the subject matter of the departmental enquiry, stood proved. Taking into consideration the past record of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority however, imposed punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 11.9.97. It is this order, which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge, with the result already indicated above. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that when a Disciplinary Authority may disagree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority is bound to record tentative reasons and give to the delinquent an opportunity so that he is able to make a representation against the same and then to record its ultimate findings. For his aforesaid contention, learned counsel relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in SBI and Ors. v. Arvind K. Shukla (JT 2001 (4) SC 415). The facts of the case in SBI and Ors. v. Arvind K. Shukla (supra), reveal that an enquiry was conducted against the delinquent officer of the Bank in respect of some charges. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that whereas one charge was proved, the other charges were only partly proved. On receipt of findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority re-examined the material and did not agree with the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer on various charges. The Disciplinary Authority, on the other hand, came to the conclusion that all charges were fully proved. Taking into account the gravity of the charges, the Disciplinary Authority recommended the case to the Appointing Authority for infliction of major punishment. The Appointing Authority terminated services of the delinquent servant who preferred an appeal which was dismissed. The Disciplinary Authority, on the other hand, came to the conclusion that all charges were fully proved. Taking into account the gravity of the charges, the Disciplinary Authority recommended the case to the Appointing Authority for infliction of major punishment. The Appointing Authority terminated services of the delinquent servant who preferred an appeal which was dismissed. These orders were challenged before the High Court and the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the non-furnishing of the reasons, which weighed with the Disciplinary Authority to differ with the findings of the enquiring officer, to the delinquent is fatal and vitiates the ultimate order of punishment. The writ petition was thus allowed. The Bank assailed the order by preferring an appeal but the division bench dismissed the same. It is, in these circumstances, that the Bank filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The only question that came to be debated was whether in a case where the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the enquiring officer on certain articles of charges and before it records its findings on such charges, is it duty bound to record its tentative reasons for such dis-agreement and give the same to the delinquent officer and an opportunity to represent, before it ultimately records its findings. Supreme Court answered the question against the Bank in view of its judgment in Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra (JT 1998 (5) SC 548). 4. The contention of the learned counsel, as noted above, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra (supra), has thus necessarily to be accepted. No judgment taking a contrary view has been cited before us by the learned counsel representing the respondent. 5. The position of law, as mentioned above expart, it appears to us that the impugned orders are required to be set aside on yet another ground that while issuing notice to the petitioner to appear and clarify the position, the Disciplinary Authority mentioned that if he shall not appear then it shall be construed as if he had nothing to say and that he agrees with the report of the Enquiry Officer. Far from telling the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority was not in agreement with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was ultimately told that if he was not to appear then it shall be considered as if he was agreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer. The report of the Enquiry Officer was surely in favour of the petitioner. He had nothing to say in so far as the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were concerned. Even though in the earlier part of the notice, it has been mentioned that if the petitioner was to clarify the position, he would appear at 11 a.m. on 8.8.1997 before the Disciplinary Authority but what clarification could have been given by the petitioner when the report of the Enquiry Officer was in his favour. Be that as it may, there was not a word mentioned in the notice that the Disciplinary Authority was in disagreement with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Naturally, in the circumstances aforesaid, no tentative reasons for disagreement were also given. 6. In view of our discussion made above, we allow this appeal. The impugned order dated 12.2.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The order dated 11.9.97 challenged in the writ petition vide which the Disciplinary Authority had imposed punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect is also set aside, leaving however, the respondent Department to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, if permissible at this stage. In view of the fluctuating fate of the parties, they are left to bear their own costs." 7. Mr. S.L. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-RSRTC, however, submits that a notice was given by the respondents on 17.02.2014 and, thus, the order of punishment dated 18.02.2014 is perfectly correct and is in accordance with law. Counsel appearing for the respondents further submits that inquiry reports merely gave benefit of doubt to the petitioner, as the charge was not proved. It was a case where there was a doubtful proposition which resulted into a conclusion of charges not being made out. Counsel appearing for the respondents also submits that the petitioner appeared, in pursuance of the notice dated 17.02.2014 and put his complete stand before the disciplinary authority. 8. It was a case where there was a doubtful proposition which resulted into a conclusion of charges not being made out. Counsel appearing for the respondents also submits that the petitioner appeared, in pursuance of the notice dated 17.02.2014 and put his complete stand before the disciplinary authority. 8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that precedent law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the Case of Mamdin Khan (supra) shall absolutely apply in the present case, as the disciplinary authority apparently has not given notice for disagreement with the inquiry authority. The multiple inquiry authority by two separate persons i.e. Deputy Manager, Head Office, who completed inquiry on 28.01.2013 and the Deputy Secretary (Personnel), who completed inquiry on 31.07.2013 have reached a common conclusion of absolving the petitioner. Notice although given by the disciplinary authority on 17.02.2014 does not indicate the disagreement on the part of the disciplinary authority from both the inquiry reports. 9. Thus, in the light of the precedent law and the aforesaid position of law, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.02.2014 (Annexure-4) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner.