ORDER : Rekha Borana, J. 1. The present petition has been filed aggrieved of the order dated 23.08.2016 passed by the respondent No. 3 (disciplinary authority) whereby, the petitioner had been held to be guilty and three penalties as per law have been imposed on him, which reads as under: ^^¼1½ fuxe ds LFkkbZ vkns'k 1965 dh /kkjk 36 ¼2½ ds ,d okf"kZd osru o`f) vlap;h izHkko ls [Without Cummulative Effect] jksdrk gw¡A ¼2½ fuxe ds LFkkbZ vkns'k 1965 dh /kkjk 36 ¼3½ ds rgr buds osru ls 10]000@& ¼nl gtkj :i;s½ olwyh ds vkns'k nsrk gw¡A ¼3½ fuxe ds LFkkbZ vkns'k 1965 dh /kkjk 36 ¼5½ ds rgr fuyEcu dky dk 'ks"k osru fuxe fgr esa tIr djrk g¡wA ¼4½ ,e , lh Vh izdj.k esa vyx ls dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA** 2. The only contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the present petition is that before concluding the disciplinary proceedings, disciplinary authority did not serve upon him the reasons for disagreement from the report of the Inquiry officer, which ought to have been communicated to him. Counsel submitted that in absence of the reasons of disagreement being communicated to him, he was prevented from raising his defence and therefore, the same amounted to a specific breach of principles of natural justice. Counsel relied upon the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment passed in S.P. Malhotra v. Punjab National Bank & Ors.; Civil Appeal No. 5128/2013 decided on 4 July, 2013 reported in (2013) 7 SCC 251 . 3. Per contra, Counsel for the respondents firstly raised a preliminary objection to the effect that against the order passed by the disciplinary authority, an appeal in terms of Clause 36 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Workers & Workshop Employees Standing Order, 1965 (for short, "Standing Order, 1965") governing the services of the employees lies before the appellate authority and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 4. So far as the argument of the counsel for the petitioner regarding the non-communication of the reasons of disagreement is concerned, counsel for the respondents could not forcefully defend the same. However, he submitted that present was not the case of disagreement as the Inquiry officer did not completely exonerate the petitioner. 5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Clause 36 of the Standing Order, 1965 reads as under: "36. However, he submitted that present was not the case of disagreement as the Inquiry officer did not completely exonerate the petitioner. 5. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Clause 36 of the Standing Order, 1965 reads as under: "36. One or more of the following penalties may for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed on a worker by a competent authority. penalties from (i) to (viii) shall be appealable- (i) Censure:- There censures in a period of one year will involve withholding of one increment. *(ii) (a) Withholding of increment without cumulative effect. (b) Withholding of increment with cumulative effect or promotion. (iii) Recovery from pay/wages of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the employer by negligence of breach of any law. (iv) Fine upto 2% of worker's wages. (v) Forfeiture of wages during the period or of suspension. (vi) Reduction to a lower post or grade. (vii) Termination of service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. (viii) Dismissal from service which shall be disqualification for future employment." 7. A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the appeal is provided only qua the penalties listed at serial Nos. (v) to (viii). 8. So far as the present case is concerned, a penalty of withholding of increment has also been imposed on the petitioner which, in view of the above provision is not appealable. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that against two penalties, an appeal would lie and qua the third penalty, some other remedy would be taken by the employee. Hence, the preliminary objection of the respondents is not found to be tenable and is rejected as such. 9. In S.P. Malhotra's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is mandatory for the disciplinary authority to record reasons for disagreement and communicate the same to the delinquent and seek his response and only after considering the same, he could pass an order of punishment. It is clear on record that no such reasons recording the disagreement or tentative reasons for disagreement from the report of the Inquiry officer have been communicated to the petitioner in the present matter. 10. Therefore, in view of the ratio as laid down in S.P. Malhotra's case (supra) and in view of the observations as made above, the order dated 23.08.2016 (Annexure. 10. Therefore, in view of the ratio as laid down in S.P. Malhotra's case (supra) and in view of the observations as made above, the order dated 23.08.2016 (Annexure. 4) is quashed and set aside. However, it is left open for the Department to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner after complying with all the provisions of law. 11. With these observations, the present petition is disposed of. 12. All pending applications also stand disposed of.