JUDGMENT : (Hon'ble Dr. Justice S.N. Pathak, J.) : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 16.09.2009 passed by respondent No. 3, whereby punishment of reduction in the pay-scale of petitioner by one stage has been awarded and further direction was issued to recover 20% of the awarded amount plus interest from the petitioner. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the appellate order and memorial dated 20.09.2011 and 16.10.2012 respectively, by which the order of punishment has been affirmed. 3. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner while working as Development Officer at Sindri Branch on 04.10.2000, without physical inspection of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. BR-17E-7155, accepted proposal form ignoring guidelines of the respondent-Company. As a consequence, a claim case was preferred by the legal heirs of the deceased who died in accident in which the respondent-Company was saddled with compensation amount of Rs.5,25,000/- by the Motor Vehicle Claim Tribunal. For the said misconduct and negligence towards duties, a preliminary enquiry was made by the respondent-Company and after enquiry, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 26.12.2005 asking him to submit his reply within a period of 15 days. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply, however, as the same was not satisfactory regular departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by appointing Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 18.09.2008 exonerating the petitioner from the guilty of the charges. Thereafter, vide letter dated 05.02.2009, 2nd show-cause notice along with copy of enquiry report was served upon the petitioner and he was directed to submit his reply on the same. However, being not satisfied by reply of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of punishment dated 16.09.2009, which was later on affirmed in the appeal and memorial preferred by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are perverse and liable to be set aside because same has been passed without proper application of mind. The order passed by the respondents are totally unreasonable and unwarranted and against the settled principle of natural justice because the petitioner has been punished for the offence which was not committed on his part. The order passed by the respondents are totally unreasonable and unwarranted and against the settled principle of natural justice because the petitioner has been punished for the offence which was not committed on his part. Learned counsel further argues that though the Inquiry Officer has exonerated him from the charges but Disciplinary Authority without assigning any reason has differed the findings of the Inquiry Officer and has imposed upon the petitioner which is not tenable in law and is fit to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further argues that the impugned orders are fit to be set aside on the ground that Inquiry Officer has fully exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him by giving a detailed enquiry report and the disciplinary authority, though differs with the reasoned enquiry report but without assigning any valid and cogent reason for differing with the enquiry report, passed the impugned order in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Learned counsel further submits that the punishment orders are cryptic, as neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority have applied their own independent mind nor considered the reply submitted by the petitioner, before passing the impugned orders. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that due to negligence on the part of the petitioner, the Insurance Company has suffered huge financial loss inasmuch as if the petitioner would have followed the rules of the Insurance Co., the vehicle in question would not have been insured and the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal could not have asked the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. Learned counsel further argues that the Disciplinary Authority after going through the Inquiry Report found several irregularity in the same and hence, differed from the inquiry report and in exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 26(2) of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. CDR Rule, 2003, enquired the matter and then came to the conclusion that the report of the Inquiry Officer is not tenable on the Charge Nos. 1 and 2 and came to its own conclusion that the same are fully proved. Ltd. CDR Rule, 2003, enquired the matter and then came to the conclusion that the report of the Inquiry Officer is not tenable on the Charge Nos. 1 and 2 and came to its own conclusion that the same are fully proved. Learned counsel further submits that the order of punishment has been affirmed by the highest authority of the respondents and hence, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere in the same unless it is proved that some illegality has been committed by the respondents at time of the awarding punishment to the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration for the following facts and reasons: (I) Petitioner has been exonerated by the Inquiry Officer. (II) The charges levelled against the petitioner has not at all been proved. (III) The Disciplinary Authority though differs with the inquiry report but without assigning any reason for differing with the inquiry report, has held the petitioner guilty of the charges and inflicted major punishment, which is against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of its decisions. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Managing Director, ECIL & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors., reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 has held that: “26. The reason why the right to receive the report of the enquiry officer is considered an essential part of the reasonable opportunity at the first stage and also a principle of natural justice is that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer form an important material before the disciplinary authority which along with the evidence is taken into consideration by it to come to its conclusions. It is difficult to say in advance, to what extent the said findings including the punishment, if any, recommended in the report would influence the disciplinary authority while drawing its conclusions. The findings further might have been recorded without considering the relevant evidence on record, or by misconstruing it or unsupported by it. It is difficult to say in advance, to what extent the said findings including the punishment, if any, recommended in the report would influence the disciplinary authority while drawing its conclusions. The findings further might have been recorded without considering the relevant evidence on record, or by misconstruing it or unsupported by it. If such a finding is to be one of the documents to be considered by the disciplinary authority, the principles of natural justice require that the employee should have a fair opportunity to meet, explain and controvert it before he is condemned. It is negation of the tenets of justice and a denial of fair opportunity to the employee to consider the findings recorded by a third party like the enquiry officer without giving the employee an opportunity to reply to it. Although it is true that the disciplinary authority is supposed to arrive at its own findings on the basis of the evidence recorded in the inquiry, it is also equally true that the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the findings recorded by the enquiry officer along with the evidence on record. In the circumstances, the findings of the enquiry officer do constitute an important material before the disciplinary authority which is likely to influence its conclusions. If the enquiry officer were only to record the evidence and forward the same to the disciplinary authority, that would not constitute any additional material before the disciplinary authority of which the delinquent employee has no knowledge. However, when the enquiry officer goes further and records his findings, as stated above, which may or may not be based on the evidence on record or are contrary to the same or in ignorance of it, such findings are an additional material unknown to the employee but are taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority while arriving at its conclusions. Both the dictates of the reasonable opportunity as well as the principles of natural justice, therefore, require that before the disciplinary authority comes to its own conclusions, the delinquent employee should have an opportunity to reply to the enquiry officer’s findings. Both the dictates of the reasonable opportunity as well as the principles of natural justice, therefore, require that before the disciplinary authority comes to its own conclusions, the delinquent employee should have an opportunity to reply to the enquiry officer’s findings. The disciplinary authority is then required to consider the evidence, the report of the enquiry officer and the representation of the employee against it.” Further in case of Ram Kishan v. Union of India, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 157 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under : “10. …………. The purpose of the show-cause notice, in case of disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer, is to enable the delinquent to show that the disciplinary authority is persuaded not to disagree with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer for the reasons given in the inquiry report or he may offer additional reasons in support of the finding by the inquiry officer. In that situation, unless the disciplinary authority gives specific reasons in the show cause on the basis of which the findings of the inquiry officer in that behalf is based, it would be difficult for the delinquent to satisfactorily give reasons to persuade the disciplinary authority to agree with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer. In the absence of any ground or reason in the show-cause notice it amounts to an empty formality which would cause grave prejudice to the delinquent officer and would result in injustice to him. The mere fact that in the final order some reasons have been given to disagree with the conclusions reached by the disciplinary authority cannot cure the defect.” The same view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 , relevant paras of which is reproduced herein below: “17. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit case8 quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. The aforesaid passages clearly bring out the necessity of the authority which is to finally record an adverse finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit case8 quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. The aforesaid passages clearly bring out the necessity of the authority which is to finally record an adverse finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. If the enquiry officer had given an adverse finding, as per Karunakar case4 the first stage required an opportunity to be given to the employee to represent to the disciplinary authority, even when an earlier opportunity had been granted to them by the enquiry officer. It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. 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. ………. ……… 19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority 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. 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. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” (IV) It was the requirement of the Disciplinary Authority to assign reasons for differing with the inquiry report and also to seek reply of delinquent employee. Though the reply was sought for but the Disciplinary Authority has not assigned any valid or cogent reason for differing with the inquiry report and as such, the impugned orders are fit to be quashed and set aside. (V) Even the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority has mechanically rejected the Appeal and Memorial of the petitioner and without application of their independent mind and without assigning any reason, have just agreed with the view of the Disciplinary Authority. 7. As a sequel of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the order dated 16.09.2009 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and appellate order and memorial dated 20.09.2011 and 16.10.2012 respectively are hereby quashed and set aside. Since the impugned orders are quashed and set aside, the petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits for which he is entitled for in accordance with law and the respondents are directed to extend the same to the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.