ORDER : 1. The appellant-Central Coalfields Limited is aggrieved of the order dated 10.01.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 830 of 2011, by which the order of dismissal of the employee namely, Asgar Ali from service has been quashed and his widow has been held entitled for all consequential benefits, except back wages for the interregnum. 2. Referring to the decision in National Fertilizers Ltd. and Another vs. P.K. Khanna, (2005) 7 SCC 597 , Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel for the appellant-CCL contends that disagreement of the disciplinary authority to the enquiry report has been duly recorded in the second show-cause notice dated 30.07.2008 but the learned writ Court has erred in law in quashing the dismissal order on the ground that “notes of disagreement” was not served upon the employee-Asgar Ali. 3. As against the above, Mr. Rishi Raj Verma, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1-writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as respondent) submits that by not serving notes of disagreement before the disciplinary authority took a final decision in the matter the employee was denied a valuable right to place his case before the disciplinary authority and therefore the learned writ Court has rightly interfered with the order of dismissal. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the judgments in Lav Nigam vs. Chairman & MD, ITI Ltd. and Another, (2006) 9 SCC 440 , Punjab National Bank and Others vs. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 and Basudeo Tiwary vs. Sido Kanhu University and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 194 . 5. The learned writ Court has held as under: “6. After bestowing my anxious consideration to submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on close scrutiny of the materials available on record, it came to surface that after rendering about three decades of services the husband of the petitioner has been dismissed from services on the allegation that for securing employment under "Voluntary Retirement Scheme" he furnished wrong information to the effect that he is nephew of ex-employee, Md. Yunus, who has tendered Voluntary Retirement to provide employment to his nephew-Asgar Ali (the husband of the petitioner). However, in the enquiry, on the basis certificate/family tree issued by Circle Officer, Gola and Muslim Society that the husband of the petitioner is nephew of said Md. Yunus, who has tendered Voluntary Retirement to provide employment to his nephew-Asgar Ali (the husband of the petitioner). However, in the enquiry, on the basis certificate/family tree issued by Circle Officer, Gola and Muslim Society that the husband of the petitioner is nephew of said Md. Yunus, the enquiry officer recorded its finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved. On the contrary, the disciplinary authority only on the count that the said Circle Officer was not examined in the enquiry disbelieved that clinching piece of documentary evidence and came to the contrary conclusion and imposed the major punishment of removal from services. It is well settled law that the disciplinary authority has power to disagree from the findings of the enquiry officer, but he can do so after giving cogent reasons for the same but in the case at hand, it does not appear to be so, hence, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. But at this juncture, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that management adduced two witnesses who proved that the husband of the petitioner is not the nephew of Md. Yunus. 7. Be that as it may be, another point, which has vehemently been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of dismissal has been passed by the Project Officer, who is below the rank of appointing authority, hence, the impugned order is in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, however, placing the Note-sheet at Annexure C to the Supplementary counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the project officer/disciplinary authority had taken approval of the competent authority in terms of 28.6 of the certified standing order before imposing punishment of dismissal on the ex-employee. But, the genuinity of the said note-sheet has seriously been questioned by learned senior counsel for the petitioner. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into such disputed question of fact. However considering all aspects of the matter, no useful purpose would be served, even if any direction is issued to go into the genuinty of Annexure C. Hence, in the fitness of thing without doubting or accepting that piece of evidence, writ petition ought to be dispose of.” 6. Briefly stated, on an allegation that he has secured employment falsely declaring himself nephew of the employee-Md. Briefly stated, on an allegation that he has secured employment falsely declaring himself nephew of the employee-Md. Yunus who opted for VRS, a charge-memo was served upon the husband of the respondent who has died on 12.10.2014. The enquiring officer submitted a report finding the charges framed against him not proved and after issuing a second show-cause notice dated 30.07.2008 the disciplinary authority has inflicted punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 11.02.2009. His appeal filed against the penalty order dated 11.02.2009 has failed on 15.10.2009. He came to this Court in W.P. (S) No. 830 of 2011 challenging the aforesaid orders dated 11.02.2009 and 15.10.2009. During pendency of the writ petition, he died on 12.10.2014 and his wife- Anguri Khatoon has been substituted in his place. 7. In a departmental proceeding, a delinquent employee has right to be treated fairly and a fair opportunity to defend himself. Observance of the principles of natural justice in a departmental enquiry is a mandatory requirement in law, has been indicated in one of the earliest judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, one being Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishan and Others, AIR 1964 SC 477 . It has been held that if an order of punishment has been passed in breach of the rules of natural justice, a writ of certiorari shall lie. In Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that a delinquent employee has a right to receive the enquiry report and if that was not done it would be violation of the principles of natural justice. Taking the matter on this issue further; whether a copy of the enquiry report must be served upon the delinquent employee where the enquiry officer has recorded favourable findings, it was held that it is necessary that in such cases also a copy of the enquiry report must be served upon the delinquent employee. Taking the matter on this issue further; whether a copy of the enquiry report must be served upon the delinquent employee where the enquiry officer has recorded favourable findings, it was held that it is necessary that in such cases also a copy of the enquiry report must be served upon the delinquent employee. Then came the judgment in Punjab National Bank and Others vs. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 , wherein it has been held that the disciplinary authority when disagrees with the favourable findings recorded in the enquiry report must record his tentative opinion, give a copy of the notes of disagreement and provide an opportunity to the delinquent employee to respond to the same before he forms a final opinion in the matter and if that is not done, the penalty order would be rendered illegal having been passed in breach of the rules of natural justice. It has been held, thus: “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. The judgment in Kunj Behari Misra has been followed by the Supreme Court in several other cases including the one in Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharastra and Another, (1999) 7 SCC 739 , wherein the Hon'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. 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. 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.......” 9. A careful reading of the decisions on supply of notes of disagreement, which is the issue involved in this case, would indicate that after the enquiry report is submitted and before the disciplinary authority passes the final order, at two stages separate notices have to be given to the delinquent employee. If the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings recorded by the enquiring officer he must record his tentative opinion and serve a copy of the notes of disagreement upon the delinquent employee so as to provide him an opportunity to represent. Second show-cause notice is a distinct stage in the disciplinary proceeding. It is a requirement under the first proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. It has been held mandatory in Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 . There a question arose whether in view of the 42nd Amendment it is necessary to give a second show-cause notice to the delinquent employee, that is, another show-cause notice on the proposed punishment. It has been held mandatory in Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 . There a question arose whether in view of the 42nd Amendment it is necessary to give a second show-cause notice to the delinquent employee, that is, another show-cause notice on the proposed punishment. Before the disciplinary authority passes a final order, either imposing punishment or exonerating the delinquent employee, he has to apply his mind at two intermediate stages and to form two opinions; whether the charge has been proved or not, and the proposed punishment. Both are two distinct stages and at both the stage the opinion formed by the disciplinary authority is considered tentative. It is not final because the delinquent employee has a right to represent to persuade the disciplinary authority to take a favourable view in the matter. After the 42nd Amendment, the requirement to give notice on the proposed punishment has been done away with but another dimension to the departmental enquiry has been added by the decision in Kunj Behari Misra. It has been held that if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry report exonerating the delinquent employee of the charges framed against him, the disciplinary authority must record the reasons and give a copy of the notes of disagreement to the delinquent employee so as to provide him an opportunity to represent against the tentative discordant note struck by the disciplinary authority. 10. What has been done by the disciplinary authority in the present case is that he has recorded his disagreement with the enquiry report in the second show-cause notice itself. 11. Supply of notes of disagreement and an opportunity of hearing must be distinguished from the second show-cause notice. 12. In the above background, we have carefully examined the materials brought on record and find that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.01.2017 passed in W.P. (S) No. 830 of 2011. However, we clarify that what normally is permissible for an employer to proceed with the departmental enquiry from the stage it is found that the breach has been committed by the departmental authority, in view of death of the husband of the writ-petitioner, is not possible now and the appellant-M/s CCL cannot proceed further in the matter [Refer, Kunj Behari Misra case]. 13. Viewed thus and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, L.P.A. No. 541 of 2017 is dismissed. 13. Viewed thus and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, L.P.A. No. 541 of 2017 is dismissed. I.A. No. 8392 of 2017 stands disposed of.