JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 15.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(S) No. 579 of 2010, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-writ petitioner was dismissed. 3. At the outset, it will be relevant to state that translated version in English of documents in Hindi had been furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the same has been relied on in this judgment. 4. The petitioner was working on the post of Cashier in Durg-Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank, Branch-Silhati. An undated complaint was lodged by some villagers alleging that the Branch Manager and the Cashier of the said Silhati Branch used to illegally realise 10% of the loan amount sanctioned to the farmers under the Kisan Credit Card Scheme. The Collector, District-Kabirdham had caused an enquiry to be made through the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar submitted his report to the Collector stating therein that the complaint appears to have been made with a malafide intention. Many of the debtors who had obtained loan had not made any complaint. It was further stated in the report that since the matter related to payments made by the employees of the Bank, it would be proper that the enquiry is conducted by higher authorities of the Bank itself. 5. The petitioner was suspended from the services of the bank on 24.06.2008. Subsequently, a charge-sheet dated 08.08.2008 containing the following charges (as translated by the petitioner) was issued to the petitioner : “(1) Shri Vijay Kumar Uppal misused his post by committing misappropriation of amount by paying debtors/beneficiaries of the bank amount less than the amount filled by them in withdrawal forms and cheques and by illegally keeping the cash of balance amount with himself for undue profit. (2) Shri Vijay Kumar Uppal did not care for manners while dealing and interacting with the debtors and beneficiaries of the bank. He did not follow the orders and directions of the bank. He did not serve the bank with integrity and harmed the image of the bank.” 6. (2) Shri Vijay Kumar Uppal did not care for manners while dealing and interacting with the debtors and beneficiaries of the bank. He did not follow the orders and directions of the bank. He did not serve the bank with integrity and harmed the image of the bank.” 6. The statement of allegations in support of the charges which was annexed to the charge-sheet (as translated by the petitioner), reads as follows : “(1) In support of Charge No.1:- 1.1 In Branch-Silhati, on 28.05.2008, Shri Bhagwati Sahu S/o Badriprasad Sahu, Village-Vicharpur, Block-Saspur, Lohara, deposited cheque No.2073143 dated 28.05.2008 for withdrawing cash amount of Rs.30,137/- (Thirty thousand one hundred and thirty-seven rupees only) from his Kisaan Credit Card Loan Account No.594. The said cheque was sent to Shri Uppal at cash counter, for payment. Against the said cheque, Shri Uppal paid only Rs.28,000/- to Shri Bhagwati Sahu and illegally kept the balance amount, Rs.2000/- and Rs.137/- with himself. Shri Bhagwati Sahu even requested Shri Uppal not do deduct money. Despite it the remaining amount was not given. Shri Shatrughan Verma of village Vicharpur was present in the branch during the said act of Shri Uppal. 1.2 In Branch-Silhati, on 04.06.2008, Smt. Mankunwar W/o Shri Dashrath Verma, Village-Vicharpur, Block-Saspur, Lohara, deposited cheque No.1820904 dated 04.06.2008 for withdrawing cash amount of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand rupees only) from her Kisaan Credit Card Loan Account No. 600. The said cheque was sent to Shri Uppal at cash counter, for payment. Against the said cheque, Shri Uppal paid only Rs.18,000/- to Smt. Mankunwar. When Smt. Mankunwar told that the amount given to her was not Rs.20,000/-, Shri Uppal gave her Rs.500/- more and said that he had deducted Rs.1,500/-. Despite Smt. Mankunwar Bai and Shri Shiv Kumar accompanying him asking why he had deducted Rs.1,500/-, cashier Shri Uppal did not return Rs.1,500/- and kept that balance amount with himself illegally. Shri Shiv Kumar Verma, Shri Netram Sahu and Shri Nirmal Sahu of village Vicharpur were present in the branch during the said act of Shri Uppal. As aforesaid, Shri Vijay Kumar Uppal misused his post and for his own undue profit, he illegally deducted amount from the amount payable to the debtors and beneficiaries of the bank while paying them cash against their cheques at the cash counter and thus, misappropriated the said amount. As aforesaid, Shri Vijay Kumar Uppal misused his post and for his own undue profit, he illegally deducted amount from the amount payable to the debtors and beneficiaries of the bank while paying them cash against their cheques at the cash counter and thus, misappropriated the said amount. He did not serve the bank with honesty and integrity and put the bank at financial risk, which falls under the category of act of misconduct under regulations 16, 17 and 19 of Durg-Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2000. (2) In support of Charge No.2:- 2.1 On 04.06.2008, after coming out of the branch, Smt. Mankunawar W/o Shri Dashrath Verma, R/o Vicharpur; Shri Shiv Kumar Verma, Shri Netram Sahu and Shri Nirmal Sahu were standing across the road in front of the bank and were talking among themselves regarding deduction of Rs.1,500/- by cashier, Shri Uppal from the payment of Smt. Mankunwar. Meanwhile Shri Uppal went to them and said, “Why are you making noise? I just deducted Rs.1,500/- and you are feeling bad!” By committing the aforesaid said act, Shri Vijay Kumar Uppal has not complied with the orders and directions of the bank. He did not care for manners while dealing and interacting with the customers of the bank. He did not serve the bank with integrity and harmed the image of the bank, which falls under the category of act of misconduct under regulations 16, 17 and 19 of Durg-Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2000.” 7. The petitioner was asked to furnish his explanation in defence within 15 days of the receipt of the charge-sheet, failing which it was indicated that it shall be deemed that he has no explanation to offer in defence and that proceedings will be carried out accordingly. 8. In the reply submitted by the petitioner, with regard to charge No. 1, it was stated that as against the cheque for withdrawal of amount of Rs.30,137/- from KCC loan account, entry was made accordingly and the same was passed through the Branch Manager and the payment was accepted by Bhagwati Sahu who had put her signature on the overleaf of the cheque accepting the said payment. It was stated that the complaint was made by Bhagwati Sahu to the Collector on 05.06.2008 i.e. after seven days of payment having been made on 28.05.2008. It was stated that the complaint was made by Bhagwati Sahu to the Collector on 05.06.2008 i.e. after seven days of payment having been made on 28.05.2008. It was further stated that similarly, Rs.20,000/- was paid to Smt. Mankunwar on 04.06.2008 who had also accepted receipt of the payment by signing on the overleaf of the cheque. No complaint was made by them on the dates when payment was made regarding receiving of less loan amount, either in the cash counter or to the Branch Manager. A notice board is put up before the office room of the Branch Manager stating that the customers are to ensure before leaving the counter that the money received by them is in order and that later on, no claim shall be entertained. With regard to charge No. 2, it is stated that on 04.06.2008, he was not involved in any incident as alleged which took place near the grocery shop of Kamlesh and that a false allegation has been levelled against him. 9. Not being satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. During the enquiry, four witnesses were examined on behalf of the Bank. The petitioner sought permission for producing two persons, namely, one Pradeep Gupta and Shri Anil Kumar Tiwari, Branch Manager, as witnesses. While the request for examining Pradeep Gupta was accepted, the request for examining Anil Kumar Tiwari, Branch Manager was not accepted as Mr. Tiwari himself was charge-sheeted. 10. On consideration of the materials on record, the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 12.11.2009 held that the charges were not proved. However, not agreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority issued a notice to the petitioner on 01.02.2010 to explain as to why imposition of penalty of dismissal from service may not be imposed upon him. The petitioner was also given an opportunity for hearing in person to present his arguments on 15.02.2010 at 3:00 pm at the Head Office of the Durg-Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank. Copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner alongwith the notice dated 01.02.2010. 11. It is to be noted that after issuance of the notice dated 01.02.2010, the petitioner filed the writ petition on 05.02.2010 challenging the said notice and praying for his reinstatement. While the writ petition was pending, an order dated 27.02.2010 imposing penalty of dismissal was passed. 11. It is to be noted that after issuance of the notice dated 01.02.2010, the petitioner filed the writ petition on 05.02.2010 challenging the said notice and praying for his reinstatement. While the writ petition was pending, an order dated 27.02.2010 imposing penalty of dismissal was passed. Against the said order of dismissal from service, the petitioner filed an appeal before the President and Appellate Authority, which was also rejected by order dated 02.11.2010. Consequently, the writ petition was amended to challenge the order dated 27.02.2010 and the order of the appellate authority dated 02.11.2010 (wrongly written as 01.11.2010) in the prayer portion. 12. The learned Single Judge had held that a prima facie opinion as to the conclusion which can be reached on the evidence will be required to be recorded in the notice of disagreement and that the Disciplinary Authority had rightly indicated that penalty of dismissal shall be imposed if the delinquent otherwise fails to satisfy the authority with regard to the opinion which he had recorded in the notice of disagreement. As the petitioner had been given opportunity of personal hearing, it was held that it cannot be said that due process was not followed. 13. Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner submits that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to show cause with regard to the disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority with the reasoning and findings given in the enquiry report by the Enquiry Officer and therefore, the writ petition was initially filed challenging the show cause notice dated 01.02.2010, by which the Disciplinary Authority had proposed penalty of dismissal from service. It is submitted by Mr. Thakur that the disagreement expressed by the Disciplinary Authority is conclusive in nature and not tentative disagreement and therefore also, the disciplinary proceedings is vitiated and the order of penalty is liable to be interfered with. He submits that on due consideration of the materials on record, the Enquiry Officer had held the charges to be not proved but the Disciplinary Authority, on surmises and conjectures, had arbitrarily held the charges to be proved. He submits that on due consideration of the materials on record, the Enquiry Officer had held the charges to be not proved but the Disciplinary Authority, on surmises and conjectures, had arbitrarily held the charges to be proved. He relies on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Punjab National Bank & Others v. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 , Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra & Another, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 739 , SBI & Others v. Arvind K. Shukla, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 797 , and Lav Nigam v. Chairman & MD, ITI Ltd. & Another, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 440 . 14. Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, relying on the judgment of the learned Single Judge, contends that no case is made out for interference. 15. It will be relevant to take note of the following portions of the show cause notice dated 01.02.2010, the English version of which (translated by the petitioner) reads as follows : “Considering the substantial facts and circumstances that have appeared in records that have been mentioned above, I totally disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and I arrive at the conclusion that Charges No.1 & 2 imposed in Charge-sheet No. Pra. Kaa./Karmik-1108/2008 dated 08.08.2008 get proved. Therefore, I arrive at the conclusion that on the basis of the statement made by the witnesses in oral evidence and the documents produced and affirmed in support of the charges, the charges imposed on accused employee Shri Vijay Kumar Uppal get proved. In this regard, charge-wise conclusion is as follows:- From the documents produced and affirmed, that is, documents No. P-1, P-3, P-4, P-7, P-8 & P-9 and statements made in evidence by witnesses Smt. Mankunwar Bai, Shri Bhagwati Sahu, Shri Netram and Shri Shivkumar, Charge No.1 that Shri Vijay Kumar Uppal misused his post by committing misappropriation of amount by paying debtors/ beneficiaries of the bank amount less than the amount filled by them in withdrawal forms and cheques and by illegally keeping the cash of balance amount with himself for undue profit, is proved. From the documents produced and affirmed, that is, documents No. P-1, P-3, P-4, P-7, P-8 & P-9 and statements made in evidence by witnesses Smt. Mankunwar Bai, Shri Bhagwati Sahu, Shri Netram and Shri Shivkumar, Charge No.2 that Shri Vijay Kumar Uppal did not care for manners while dealing and interacting with the debtors and beneficiaries of the bank. We did not follows the orders and directions of the bank. He did not serve the bank with integrity and harmed the image of the bank, is proved. 6. I have studied in detail the documentary evidence, oral evidence and all the documents related to the inquiry, on the basis of which I arrive at the conclusion that Charges No.1&2 stated in Letter No. Pra. Ka./ Karmik-1108/2008 dated 08.08.2008, are proved. 7. For the financial irregularities carried out by Shri Uppal during his posting in Branch Kaudikasa, Charge-sheet No. Pra. Ka./Karmik-814/93-94, dated 19.05.93 was given to Shri Vijay Kumar Uppal and for the charges that were found proved, the penalty of ‘withholding two future increments with cumulative effect’ was imposed on him through Order No. Pra. Ka./Karmik-2000/93-94 dated 23.07.93. 8. For the financial irregularities carried out by Shri Uppal during his posting in Branch Saja, Charge-sheet No. Pra. Ka./Karmik-4672/2005, dated 06.04.2005 was given to Shri Vijay Kumar Uppal and for the charges that were found proved, the penalty of “Dismissal’ was imposed on him through Order No. Pra. Ka./Karmik-6716/2005, dated 26.10.2005, which was considered sympathetically by the appellate authority on humanitarian grounds and the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority was minimized and changed to ‘withholding four future increments with cumulative effect’. 9. Thus, it is clear that Shri Uppal carried out financial irregularities habitually. Therefore, considering the nature and circumstances of the charges that were found proved, it is my opinion that the misconduct carried out by Shri Vijay Kumar Uppal is of serious nature. Hence, for the serious charges that have been found proved against him, it would be appropriate to propose the penalty stated hereinunder. 10. For the charges stated in Letter No. Pra. Ka./ Karmik-1108/2008 dated 08.08.2008, that were found proved, that is, for Charges No.1&2, as per Sub-section (vi) Section (B) of Regulation 38(II) of Durg-Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations-2000, imposing the penalty of “Dismissal” will be justified. 11. 10. For the charges stated in Letter No. Pra. Ka./ Karmik-1108/2008 dated 08.08.2008, that were found proved, that is, for Charges No.1&2, as per Sub-section (vi) Section (B) of Regulation 38(II) of Durg-Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations-2000, imposing the penalty of “Dismissal” will be justified. 11. Hereby it is informed that Shri Vijay Kumar Uppal has been suspended through Letter No. Pra. Ka./ Karmik-707/2008 dated 24.06.2008, which (the period since then) is declared ‘period without work’ under the provisions underlying in Regulation No.46 of Durg-Rajnandgaon Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations-2000. Therefore, any amount other than subsistence allowance paid for this period, is not payable. 12. Hereby Shri Uppal is given an opportunity to submit his report in writing, if any, on the date stated below, so as to why the penalty proposed as aforesaid not be imposed on him. 13. Hereby Shri Uppal is given one more opportunity for hearing in person to present his arguments. He is given an opportunity to be present along with his Defence Representative (if any) at the place, at the time on the date stated below:- Date:- 15 February, 2010 Place:- 03:00 p.m. Place:- Durg-Rajandgaon Gramin Bank Head Office, Rajnandgaon 14. If Shri Uppal is not present at the said place at the said time on the said date, it shall be assumed that he does not want to submit his argument regarding the proposed penalty and the aforesaid proposed penalty shall finally be imposed on Shri Vijay Kumar Uppal.” 16. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner, having regard to the nature of expressions used contends that conclusive opinion was recorded by the Disciplinary Authority holding that the charges are proved, we will proceed on the assumption that the same is a tentative opinion. 17. The learned Single Judge has opined that the nature of evidence has to be recorded in a notice of disagreement so as to enable the delinquent to satisfy the authority to change his opinion that was recorded in the notice of disagreement. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 01.02.2010, however, goes to show that no opportunity of showing cause to the reasons for disagreement with the report of the Enquiry Officer was afforded to the petitioner. The show cause notice was issued only with regard to the proposed penalty of dismissal from service. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 01.02.2010, however, goes to show that no opportunity of showing cause to the reasons for disagreement with the report of the Enquiry Officer was afforded to the petitioner. The show cause notice was issued only with regard to the proposed penalty of dismissal from service. Though the Disciplinary Authority, in the order of penalty dated 27.02.2010, states that he had heard the delinquent in person on the proposed penalty and the reasons for disagreement, we are of the opinion that the show cause notice dated 01.02.2010 having not asked for any explanation with regard to the reasons for disagreement with the report of the Enquiry Officer, even if some opportunity was granted at the time of personal hearing, the same would not meet the requirements of the principles of natural justice. A proper opportunity to show cause has to be given to the delinquent to rebut the opinion recorded by the Disciplinary Authority regarding his disagreement, which was not afforded in the instant case. 18. In Kunj Behari Misra (supra), the controversy centered around the disagreement recorded by the Disciplinary Authority with the findings of the Enquiry Authority. Regulation 7(2) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1977 did not stipulate granting of an opportunity to represent against the disagreement recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that principles of natural justice has to be read into in Regulation 7(2) and whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the Enquiry Officer 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. 19. In Yoginath D. Bagde (supra), while following the judgment in Kunj Behari Misra (supra), amongst others, it was held that formation of an opinion by the Disciplinary Authority should be tentative and not final. 19. In Yoginath D. Bagde (supra), while following the judgment in Kunj Behari Misra (supra), amongst others, it was held that formation of an opinion by the Disciplinary Authority should be tentative and not final. 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. 20. In Arvind K. Shukla (supra), the decision in Kunj Behari Misra (supra) was followed. 21. In Lav Nigam (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court again relied on the decisions in Kunj Behari Misra (supra) and Yoginath D. Bagde (supra). At paragraph 10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows : “10. The conclusion of the High Court was contrary to the consistent view taken by this Court that in case the disciplinary authority differs with the view taken by the inquiry officer, he is bound to give a notice setting out his tentative conclusions to the appellant. It is only after hearing the appellant that the disciplinary authority would at all arrive at a final finding of guilt. Thereafter, the employee would again have to be served with a notice relating to the punishment proposed.” 22. Having regard to the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is evident that the procedure followed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot receive judicial imprimatur. As noticed, no opportunity was granted to the delinquent to submit a representation against the disagreement recorded as against the report of the Enquiry Officer and straightaway penalty was proposed for which only explanation was sought for. 23. We are of the considered opinion that there is procedural irregularities while imposing punishment upon the petitioner, which go to the root of the matter. 24. In view of the above discussion, the order of penalty dated 27.02.2010 is set aside. However, as the petitioner was under suspension till the date of passing of the order of penalty, he will continue to remain under suspension. The Disciplinary Authority will treat the conclusion arrived at in the notice of the disagreement dated 01.02.2010 to be tentative opinion. The petitioner will be at liberty to submit a representation against the notice of disagreement dated 01.02.2010 within a period of 45 days from today. The Disciplinary Authority will treat the conclusion arrived at in the notice of the disagreement dated 01.02.2010 to be tentative opinion. The petitioner will be at liberty to submit a representation against the notice of disagreement dated 01.02.2010 within a period of 45 days from today. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority will consider the representation, if any, filed by the petitioner and take a decision as to whether the charges are held to be proved or not. If the charges are held to be proved, another notice proposing penalty is to be issued to the petitioner to enable him to show cause against the proposed penalty. Only thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority will take a final decision which will culminate the disciplinary proceedings. 25. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.