JUDGMENT : 1. The impugned order of penalty dated 30th May, 2017 read with the corrigendum order dated 16th June, 2017 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 3rd January, 2018 passed by the appellate authority is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 2. The petitioner is serving in the rank of Deputy Manager at the Haldia Dock Complex. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and a charge sheet issued on 18th September, 2013. A corrigendum to the charge sheet was issued on 13th July, 2014. The petitioner replied to both the charge sheets. An enquiry officer was engaged to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. 3. The enquiry officer's report exonerated the petitioners of all the charges. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and without giving any further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of penalty of reducing the pay of the petitioner by two stages in the same time scale of pay for a period of two years from the date of issue of the order. The petitioner was not entitled to any increments during the aforesaid period of reduction of his pay and his reduction would have the corresponding effect of postponing the future increment of his pay. 4. By an order dated 15/16th June, 2017 in partial suppression of the aforesaid order dated 30th May, 2017 the penalty of the petitioner was changed to reduction of his pay by two stages in the same time scale of pay for a period of two years, with cumulative effect. 5. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of punishment. The appellate authority by an order dated 3rd January, 2018 rejected the prayer of the petitioner by holding that the penalty that was imposed upon the petitioner was justified. 6. The primary contention of the petitioner is that in case of disagreement with the views of the enquiry officer the disciplinary authority was obliged to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to passing an order of penalty against him. The petitioner alleges violation of the principle of natural justice. 7. The petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is contrary to the provisions of the Kolkata Port Trust Employees' (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1987. The petitioner alleges violation of the principle of natural justice. 7. The petitioner submits that the action of the respondent authorities is contrary to the provisions of the Kolkata Port Trust Employees' (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1987. 8. The petitioner relies upon an unreported judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge of this court on 9th April, 2019 in WP 93 of 2018 (Subal Kumar Hansda vs. Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Ors.) wherein a similar issue was decided by the court. 9. The court took into consideration Regulation 8(A) of the Regulation of 1987 wherein at Regulation 8(A)(3) it is mentioned that if the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on the Articles of Charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during enquiry, is of the opinion, that any of the penalties specified in Clause (5) to (9) of Regulation 7 should be imposed on the employee, itself make an order imposing said penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the employee any further opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed. Clauses (5) to (9) of Regulation 7 deals with major penalties. 10. The court was of the opinion that the principles of natural justice are to be read into the provisions of law. 11. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the Regulation itself has excluded giving of any further opportunity of hearing to a delinquent, in case there is a disagreement between the findings of the enquiry officer and that of the disciplinary authority. It has been submitted that unless the Regulation which permits the authority to impose an order of penalty without giving any further opportunity of hearing to the delinquent is challenged the respondents are bound to follow the same. 12. The respondents rely upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Rash Lal Yadav vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (1994) 5 SCC 267 wherein it was held that in the absence of express words, exclusion can be inferred, having regard to the legislative history of the enactment. It has been submitted that as the Regulations expressly excluded any opportunity of hearing to a delinquent in the event of disagreement between the opinion of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. It has been submitted that as the Regulations expressly excluded any opportunity of hearing to a delinquent in the event of disagreement between the opinion of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. It was legal and valid on the part of the authority to impose punishment upon the petitioner. 13. The respondents further rely upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana vs Ram Kishan & Ors. reported in (1988) 3 SCC 416 on the same principle. 14. The respondents further rely upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amarjeet Singh & Ors. vs Devi Ratan & Ors. reported in (2010) 1 SCC 417 to highlight the issue that in the absence of a challenge to the Rules/Regulations no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 15. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and have perused the judgments relied upon by them. 16. It appears that in the disciplinary proceeding the enquiry officer has considered in details all the charges and came to a specific finding that none of the five charges levelled against the petitioner could be proved. The disciplinary authority upon perusal of the report of the enquiry officer came to an independent finding that the charges against the petitioner were proved. The appellate authority also affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. However the petitioner was not provided any opportunity of hearing by the disciplinary authority prior to imposition of the order of penalty. 17. Whether the disciplinary authority could have proceeded with the imposition of penalty after disagreeing with the report of the enquiry officer came up for consideration in a writ petition before the Hon'ble Single Judge of this court in WP 93 of 2018 (Subal Kumar Hansda vs Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Ors.). The court considered the matter in details and held that the decision of the disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer without giving the charge sheeted employee an opportunity to make a representation or without providing a hearing and the subsequent imposition of the major penalty without notifying the tentative findings of disagreement is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court had been pleased to set aside and quash the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. 18. The case at hand is exactly of the same nature. In the case of Subal Kumar Hansda (supra) the court relied upon a judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in AIR 1998 SC 2713 . The court took note of the fact that the provision which came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the provision relied upon by the respondents in the case of Subal Kumar Hansda (supra) was pari materia. 19. The court also considered the principal contained in the maxim expreccio unius personae vel rei est exclusio alterius meaning that the specific mention of one excludes the other. 20. The provision of the Regulation relied upon by the respondents to impose the order of penalty without giving another opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was clearly considered by the court and held that the principles of natural justice are to be impliedly read into the provision of law. Any decision taken by the respondents upon blind adherence to these provisions of law without complying with the implicit conditions of the principle of natural justice must be held to be bad in law. 21. In Dr. Rash Lal Yadav (supra) the Hon'ble Court held that the rules of natural justice are devised for ensuring fairness and permitting satisfactory decision making. Where the statute is silent and contrary intention cannot be implied the requirement of the applicability of the rule of natural justice is read into it to ensure fairness and to protect the action from the charges of arbitrariness. Unless the law expressly or by necessary implication excludes the application of the rule of natural justice, court will read the said requirement in enactments that are silent. However, if the statute expressly or by necessary implication omits the application of the rule of natural justice, the statute will not be invalidated for this omission on the ground of arbitrariness. 22. Ram Kishan (supra) was of the view that where exercise of power results any civil consequences to citizens unless the statute specifically rules out the natural justice such rule would apply. Not to do so will be violative of the principle of natural justice. 23. 22. Ram Kishan (supra) was of the view that where exercise of power results any civil consequences to citizens unless the statute specifically rules out the natural justice such rule would apply. Not to do so will be violative of the principle of natural justice. 23. In the case at hand the enquiry officer dealt with all the five charges and exonerated the petitioner. The disciplinary authority arrived at a completely different finding. In doing so the authority ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. The petitioner ought not to have been condemned unheard. 24. The contention of the respondent that as long as the Regulation is not challenged they are bound to act by the same does not hold good much water in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the matter of Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar reported in AIR 1994 SC 1074 wherein the court held that since the denial of the report of the Inquiry Officer is a denial of reasonable opportunity and a breach of the principles of natural justice, it follows that the statutory rules, if any, which deny the report to the employee are against the principles of natural justice and, therefore, invalid. The delinquent employee will, therefore, be entitled to a copy of the report even if the statutory rules do not permit the furnishing of the report or are silent on the subject. 25. The very purpose of providing the points of disagreement is to give a chance to the delinquent to convince the disciplinary authority about his innocence. The disciplinary authority is bound to act in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 26. In view of the discussions made hereinabove the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are set aside and quashed. The matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority who shall proceed afresh with the disciplinary proceeding from the stage of receiving a copy of the report of the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take step to conclude the said proceeding in accordance with law. 27. W.P No. 270 of 2018 is disposed of. No order as to costs.