JUDGMENT : 1. The afore-captioned Original Petition instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned Ext.P4 final order rendered by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram on 9.12.2022 in O.A.No.1959/2021, whereby it has been ordered that the impugned Annexure-A12 penalty order dated 03.09.2021 imposing penalty of bar of the increment with cumulative effect for two years, will stand set aside and that the applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including declaration of probation without any further delay etc. 2. The petitioners herein are the respondents in the Original Application. The sole respondent herein is the sole applicant in the Original Application. 3. Heard Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners in the Original Petition and Smt.Rekha Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent herein. 4. The above Original Petition has arisen out of the final order rendered on 9.12.2022 in Ext.P1 O.A.No.1959/2021, filed by the respondent herein before the Tribunal. The prayers in Ext.P1 O.A.No.1959/2021 are as follows “a. To set aside Annexure A1 Memo of Charges, A8 Show Cause Notice and Annexure A12 order issued by the 1st respondent. b. Declare that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant be dropped in view of the Annexure-A7 Enquiry Report and that the applicant be granted her due promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. c. Direct the 1st respondent to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant in view of the Annexure A7 Enquiry Report and to declare the probation of the applicant in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer and to consider her for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, from the date on which she became eligible for the same. d. To grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and the court may deem fit to grant, and e. Grant the cost of this Original Application.” 5. The essential grievance of the petitioners is against the imposition of major penalty of bar of the increment with cumulative effect for a period of two years, as ordered in terms of Annexure-A12 penalty order dated 03.09.2021 issued by the competent authority of the State Government in the Public Works Department. 6. We have heard both sides in extenso and have considered the rival pleadings and materials on record. 7. 6. We have heard both sides in extenso and have considered the rival pleadings and materials on record. 7. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that though the Tribunal cannot be faulted, for having set aside the impugned Annexure-A12 penalty order, on account of the grave procedural impropriety committed by the disciplinary authority concerned, the Tribunal has gone wrong in not remanding the matter to the competent disciplinary authority for action afresh from the stage of issuance of show cause notice, etc. The reasons for arriving at the above said conclusions will be stated hereinafter. 8. A brief reference to the core facts of the case would be highly pertinent. The sole respondent herein ('applicant' for short), while holding the post of Assistant Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department of the State Government, was served with Annexure-A1 Memo of Charges dated 24.10.2016 issued by the competent authority of the State Government in the Public Works Department. The disciplinary enquiry for major penalty proceedings was completed and the Enquiry Officer had submitted Annexure-A7 enquiry report to the disciplinary authority. A reading of Annexure-A7 enquiry report would indicate that, it was found that the first charge against the applicant may be dropped based on the written statement of the applicant/delinquent officer. Further, it has been opined by the Enquiry Officer in Annexure-A7 that, as against charges II to VII of Annexure-A1 Memo of Charges, the defence statement of the applicant may be accepted and the allegations may be dropped and as against charge No.VIII, the Enquiry Officer held that the findings of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, at the time of the inspection of the office on the day in question, may be taken into account and the charges may be dropped, based on the defence statement of the officer. In other words, the Enquiry Officer, appointed in terms of Annexure-A6, has submitted Annexure-A7 enquiry report, whereby the applicant has been exonerated from all the charges. It appears that further action in pursuance of Annexure-A7 enquiry report, was not immediately taken by the competent disciplinary authority. It is pointed out by the applicant that the Hon'ble Minister concerned, had made a file noting on 10.12.2018 as per Annexure-A13 (as per Note No.101 thereof), which reads as follows: “Note No.#101 Rule 15 report is not based on evidence, hence disagreed with its findings. It is pointed out by the applicant that the Hon'ble Minister concerned, had made a file noting on 10.12.2018 as per Annexure-A13 (as per Note No.101 thereof), which reads as follows: “Note No.#101 Rule 15 report is not based on evidence, hence disagreed with its findings. AE and AEE were not discharged their duties and responsibilities. There is lack of supervision and violations of procedure of road works. Therefore, proposed to cut their two increments with cumulative effect for two years. Issue show-cause notice after consulting Vigilance Dept.” 9. Based on the above said file noting at Annexure-A13, the disciplinary authority has thereafter issued Annexure-A8 show-cause notice dated 08.02.2019, directing the applicant to show-cause as to why major penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect shall not be imposed on her. A reading of Annexure-A8 show-cause dated 08.02.2019 issued by the 1st petitioner herein, would show that no reasons, whatsoever, has been given by the disciplinary authority for differing with the considered findings of the Enquiry Officer, as per Annexure-A7 enquiry report. So also, no opportunity has been given to the applicant in Annexure-A8 show-cause notice as to why the findings of the Enquiry Officer are to be reversed. Pursuant to Annexure-A8 show-cause notice, the applicant had submitted Annexure-A9 explanation dated 27.05.2019 as well as Annexure-A10 representation dated 19.11.2020 to the 1st respondent, explaining her stand that the well considered findings of the enquiry officer in Annexure-A7 enquiry report, is not liable for any reversal and that the applicant is to be exonerated from all the charges as held by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary action may be dropped, etc. and closed. However, the disciplinary authority has issued Annexure- A12 penalty order dated 03.09.2021, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and by imposing a major penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect for a period of two years. The Tribunal has clearly held that the above said impugned action of the disciplinary authority, at Annexure-A8 show-cause notice and Annexure-A12 penalty order, would be in grave violation of the statutory procedure mandated in terms of Rule 15(12)(i)(a) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'KCS (CCA) Rules or CCA Rules', for short), etc. 10. 10. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the Tribunal is fully right in holding that the 1st respondent in the O.A./1st petitioner, has committed a grave illegality and procedural impropriety in violating the mandate of Rule 15(12)(i)(a) of the KCS (CCA) Rules, which reads as follows:- “(12)(i) If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the findings on the charges, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in terms (v) to (ix) of rule 11(1) should be imposed, it shall,- (a) furnish to the Government servant a copy of the report of the inquiring Authority and where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority, a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any,, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority. ” 11. It is now well settled, by a series of rulings of the Apex Court and various High Courts including this Court, that in a case where the disciplinary authority and enquiry authority are two different functionaries, then the Enquiry Officer has to submit the enquiry report, with clear fact findings as to whether the delinquent officer is guilty or not guilty of each of the charges concerned. Once the enquiry report is submitted to the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority, can either agree or disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. But, where the enquiry officer has found that the delinquent is not guilty of all or any of the charges concerned, and if the disciplinary authority takes the stand that the said findings of the Enquiry Officer, in favour of the delinquent, is not factually correct or justifiable, then the disciplinary authority shall then issue a show-cause notice to the delinquent officer, giving the reasons as to why the disciplinary authority is provisionally differing from the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which are, otherwise, in favour of the delinquent and directing the delinquent to show-cause as to why the said provisional findings of the disciplinary authority, disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer, shall not be given effect to. The said crucial aspect is also adumbrated in Rule 15(12)(i)(a) of the KCS(CCA) Rules. Therefore, in the instant case, the said mandatory procedure has been completely violated by the 1st respondent in the Original Application. The said crucial aspect is also adumbrated in Rule 15(12)(i)(a) of the KCS(CCA) Rules. Therefore, in the instant case, the said mandatory procedure has been completely violated by the 1st respondent in the Original Application. No mention is made by the disciplinary authority in Annexure-A8 show-cause notice as to why it is found that there are good and valid reasons to differ from the factual findings made by the Enquiry Officer in terms of Annexure-A7 enquiry report that the charges against the delinquent is liable to be dropped. On the other hand, what has been offered in Annexure-A8 show-cause notice is only an explanation as to why the major penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect shall not be imposed on her. Therefore, the quashment of the impugned Annexure-A12 penalty order, for the above said reasons, as ordered by the Tribunal, in terms of Ext.P4 verdict, is fully justifiable. However, the Tribunal has also noted, in para 15 of the impugned verdict, that, ordinarily, in cases of this nature, the matter should have been remitted to the disciplinary authority for re-doing the stage of the issuance of the show-cause notice, etc. But that the Tribunal was not inclined to do so, as, in view of the file noting made by the Hon'ble Minister in Annexure-A13, which would fetter the discretion of the competent disciplinary authority and that there is no point in remitting the matter, wherein a pre- determined decision has been taken by the higher authority concerned. 12. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the said approach by the Tribunal, in not remitting the matter is not legally correct and proper. It is true that the competent higher authority has made a file noting, in terms of Annexure-A13, which would probably prima facie generate a case of reasonable likelihood of bias on the disciplinary authority, which is lower in rank to the author of Annexure-A13 file noting. But the said aspect can be easily remedied by ordering that not only Annexure-A8 show- cause notice, Annexure-A12 penalty order, but also Annexure-A13 penalty order would also stand set aside and quashed and that the matter will stand remitted to the disciplinary authority for consideration afresh from the show-cause notice stage and to act in a manner totally untrammelled by the decisions referred to in Annexure-A8, Annexure-A12 and Annexure-A13, etc. 13. 13. Smt.Rekha Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein, would submit that the disciplinary action in this case had commenced, as per Annexure-A1 memo of charges, as early as on 24.10.2016 and the enquiry report, as per Annexure-A7 report, was submitted in 2018 and that, since the declaration of probation of the applicant in the post of Assistant Executive Engineer was inordinately delayed, citing the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the original applicant was constrained to approach the Tribunal on a previous occasion by filing O.A.No.646/2021, which was disposed of as per Annexure-A11 verdict directing the competent authority (1st petitioner herein) to consider and pass orders on the representation of the original applicant as per Annexure-A10 herein. It is only at that stage that the disciplinary authority has issued Annexure-A12 penalty order, etc. Hence, it is urged that the disciplinary proceedings is also vitiated by inordinate delay and laches on the part of the respondent in the Original Application. 14. After having heard both sides, it is ordered as follows: (i) The quashment of the impugned Annexure- A12 penalty order dated 03.09.2021, issued by the 1st respondent in the Original Application will stand upheld. However, the decision of the Tribunal, to the extent that the matter has not been remitted to the disciplinary authority, will stand set aside. (ii) Further, it is ordered that Annexure-A8 show- cause notice and Annexure-A13 file note will also stand set aside and rescinded. (iii) The competent disciplinary authority will consider Annexure-A7 enquiry report afresh and will apply his mind independently and ascertain as to whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer in favour of the applicant are liable to be accepted or not. Only if the 1st respondent in the Original Application finds that there are good and valid reasons to differ from the considered findings of the enquiry report in Annexure-A7, then appropriate further steps are to be taken. If the disciplinary authority is of the considered opinion that the findings of the Enquiry Officer, have to be differed with, for good and valid reasons, then the disciplinary authority may issue a show-cause notice to the applicant originally pointing out the factual reasonings with material particulars, as to why the disciplinary authority is provisionally disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in Annexure-A7 enquiry report. Action in this regard should be duly completed by the disciplinary authority (R-1 in the O.A./1st petitioner) within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. We say so, as prima facie we are of the view that there has been inordinate delay on the part of the disciplinary authority in finalising the disciplinary action in pursuance of Annexure-A1 Memo of Charges, issued as early as on 24.10.2016. (iv) If in case such show-cause notice is issued by the disciplinary authority, then the petitioner may give his explanation thereto within ten days thereafter and the same may be sent through registered speed post to the disciplinary authority. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority will afford a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the delinquent officer, either in person or through his representative, as per the choice of the applicant and then will consider the findings of the enquiry report as well as the explanation given by the applicant and then may decide as to whether any of the findings of the Enquiry Officer are liable to be disagreed or reversed. If it is found that any of the factual findings of the Enquiry Officer is liable to be reversed, then good and valid reasons thereof should be shown in an order to be passed by the disciplinary authority in that regard. After completing the process, the disciplinary authority may finalise the action in the above disciplinary proceedings without any further delay, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of issuance of the show-cause notice, etc. Further, it is ordered that the disciplinary authority will act independently and untrammelled by the views earlier taken in Annexure-A8 show-cause notice, Annexure-A12 penalty order as well as Annexure-A13 file noting of the Hon'ble Minister. In other words, the disciplinary action will have to be finalised by the competent disciplinary authority strictly in accordance with law and independently. The above said contentions of the petitioners regarding the inordinate delay in finalising the disciplinary action, should be duly adverted to by the disciplinary authority while passing orders as above. 15. In other words, the disciplinary action will have to be finalised by the competent disciplinary authority strictly in accordance with law and independently. The above said contentions of the petitioners regarding the inordinate delay in finalising the disciplinary action, should be duly adverted to by the disciplinary authority while passing orders as above. 15. After the disciplinary action is finalised, as above, the competent authority of the petitioners may deal with the request of the petitioner for declaration of the probation, in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of finalisation of the disciplinary action as above. After taking decision on the issue of declaration of probation, the competent authority of the petitioners should also deal with the plea of the respondent for promotion to the next higher category post of Executive Engineer, in accordance with the due procedure, which is dependent on the outcome of the finalisation of disciplinary proceedings. The impugned verdict of the Tribunal will stand modified and substituted as above. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition will stand disposed of.