JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 and Mr. R.S. Ronghang, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. No one appears for the respondent no.5. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the impugned order dated 19.07.2023, whereby the Appointing Authority has been pleased to dismiss the petitioner from service. 3. The facts of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Science Teacher at Gandhinagar M.E. School, Guwahati and after rendering 2 (two) years of service in the said post, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Audit Officer in the office of the Director of Audit (Local Fund), Guwahati on 19.05.1994, whereafter the petitioner joined the said post and started discharging his duties. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted as Audit Officer on 16.09.2005 and posted at Biswanath Chariali under the office of the Assistant Director of Audit, Tezpur and later on, he was promoted as Finance & Accounts Officer (FAO) in the month of January, 2013 and was posted in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner was transferred from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup to Hamren Sub-Treasury as Treasury Officer vide Notification dated 12.12.2013 and subsequently the petitioner was also given the additional charge of FAO in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, West Karbi Anglong District. It is the further case of the petitioner that after serving in the said capacity for few years, the petitioner was again transferred to Diphu Treasury as Treasury Officer with additional charge of Treasury Officer, Bokajan Sub-Treasury vide Notification dated 05.01.2018. It is the further case of the petitioner that while he was holding the post of Treasury Officer at Diphu as stated above, pursuant to a search carried out by the jurisdictional police personnel certain cash was recovered from the office chamber of the petitioner pursuant to which an FIR was lodged being Diphu P.S. Case No.70/2019 under Section 120(B)/406/403/420 IPC and ultimately the petitioner was placed under suspension. Accordingly, a departmental proceeding was conducted and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 29.01.2022 to the Disciplinary Authority ruling in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, a departmental proceeding was conducted and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 29.01.2022 to the Disciplinary Authority ruling in favour of the petitioner. The respondent authorities thereafter by letter dated 21.02.2023 forwarded the said report to the petitioner seeking his response and though the finding of the Inquiry Officer was in favour of the petitioner, the respondent authorities dismissed the petitioner from service by order dated 19.07.2023. Aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal order, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report of the Inquiry Officer is in favour of the petitioner, wherein the Inquiry Officer has clearly acquitted the petitioner of the charges levelled against him by the disciplinary authorities. He further submits that the second Show-Cause Notice issued to him by enclosing the said Inquiry Report was duly replied by the petitioner seeking exoneration from the charges and also for reinstating him in service, as per the findings of the said Inquiry Report. He further submits that shockingly the respondent authorities instead of accepting the Inquiry Report which was in favour of the petitioner, dismissed the petitioner from service. He further submits that the said action of the respondent authorities is per se illegal, null and void, inasmuch as, no opportunity whatsoever was provided to the petitioner before disagreeing with the conclusion of the Inquiry Report as regards acquittal of the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. He further submits that Rule 9A of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) mandates that in the event the disciplinary authority is not accepting the findings of the Inquiry Authority, it is imperative upon the disciplinary authorities to furnish the statement of the findings of the disciplinary authority together with brief reasons for its disagreement if any with the findings of the Inquiry Authority. He submits that it is manifest apparent on the face of the record that no such statement of disagreement of the Inquiry Report has been submitted to the petitioner before issuing the impugned penalty. He submits that it is manifest apparent on the face of the record that no such statement of disagreement of the Inquiry Report has been submitted to the petitioner before issuing the impugned penalty. In support of the aforesaid submission, he relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court : Punjab National Bank and Others vs. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 (paragraph 17 & 19) Ram Kishan vs. Union of India & Others, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 157 (paragraph 10) He further submits by drawing attention of this Court to the definition of preliminary enquiry as contained under Clause VIII of the Manual of the Departmental Proceedings that a preliminary enquiry is not a departmental inquiry. He further submits that evidence recorded in preliminary inquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry as delinquent is not associated with it, and opportunity to cross-examine persons in such preliminary inquiry is not given to the delinquent. He further submits that preliminary inquiry loses significance/importance once regular inquiry is initiated by issuance of charge-sheet to the delinquent. In order to buttress the aforesaid, he further cites the following decisions of the Apex Court : Champaklal Chimanlal Shah vs. The Union of India, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1854 (paragraph 12 & 13) Nirmala J. Jhala vs. State of Gujarat & Another, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301 (paragraph 52.2) 5. Per contra, Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department vehemently opposes the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the departmental authorities had forwarded the copy of the Inquiry Report to the petitioner for submitting his written reply and the report indicates that there are materials against the petitioner on the basis of which the charges leveled has been proved and hence he submits that the principles of natural justice is fully met in the instant case. He further submits that the Inquiry Officer while conducting the inquiry against Charge-1 and Charge-2 has clearly stated that both the charges have been proved and therefore, simply because at the conclusion the Inquiry Officer has acquitted the petitioner from the charges leveled does not mean that the Inquiry Report is in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that the Inquiry Officer while conducting the inquiry against Charge-1 and Charge-2 has clearly stated that both the charges have been proved and therefore, simply because at the conclusion the Inquiry Officer has acquitted the petitioner from the charges leveled does not mean that the Inquiry Report is in favour of the petitioner. In the context of the aforesaid, he submits that Rule 9A of the Rules, is not applicable in the facts of the instant case, inasmuch as, there was no disagreement as envisaged under 9A of the Rules. He further submits that the charges proved are grave and therefore, the impugned dismissal order warrants no interference from this Court. 6. I have given my prudent considerations to the arguments made by both the counsels and have perused the materials available on record and also considered the citations submitted at the Bar. 7. It is apparent from the Inquiry Report dated 02.02.2022 that upon consideration the Inquiry Officer has held that the petitioner may be reasonably acquitted against Charge-1 and with regard to Charge-2, it is felt that not much deliberations is required. In other words, the clear unambiguous finding of the Inquiry Officer appears to be in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid inquiry, it appears that the respondent authorities by letter dated 21.02.2023 furnished the said Inquiry Report of the departmental proceeding to the petitioner by directing the petitioner to submit written reply within 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt of the aforesaid letter. The second show-cause Notice dated 21.02.2023 is reproduced hereinunder for ready reference : “THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE (ESTABLISHMENT-B) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 No.FEB. Dated Dispur 2023 From : The Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Finance (Establishment- B) Department. To : Sri Amarendra Sarma, AFS Treasury Officer Diphu (Under Suspension) Subject: Furnishing the Enquiry Report of Departmental Proceeding case drawn up against you Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, I am directed to forward herewith a copy of the Enquiry Report as submitted by the Inquaiy Officer in the Departmental Proceeding drawn against you for your ready reference. You are, therefore, directed to submit written reply within 7 days from the date of receive the letter. Enclo: An stated Yours faithfully, Signed by Kanta Lahkar Date: 21-02-2023 14:36:21 Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Finance (Establishment- B) Department” 8. You are, therefore, directed to submit written reply within 7 days from the date of receive the letter. Enclo: An stated Yours faithfully, Signed by Kanta Lahkar Date: 21-02-2023 14:36:21 Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Finance (Establishment- B) Department” 8. Pursuant to the receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner by his reply dated 03.03.2023 requested the State respondent that in terms of the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner may be reinstated in service and also requested the respondent State authorities to accept the said report of the inquiry conducted against him and exonerated him from all the charges, in terms of the said Inquiry Report. It appears that thereafter the respondent authorities by order dated 19.07.2023 awarded the punishment of a major penalty of dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment and accordingly removed the petitioner from service. 9. Apt to refer to the impugned order dated 19.07.2023 which is reproduced hereinunder for ready reference : “The GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE (ESTABLISHMENT-B) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 No.E-236455/157. Dated Dispur the 19th July, 2023 ORDER Whereas, while Shri Amarendra Sharma, AFS (under suspension) was working as Treasury Officer in Diphu, it was reported that partiality had been made by the Treasury Officer in disbursement of the bills and preference was given to those persons who received Treasury Token later than who had received earlier by accepting bribe. Complaint petition was also submitted by aggrieved people to the Superintendent of Police, Karbi Anglong. Whereas, Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong, entrusted Shri Narsing Bey, ACS, Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong and Shri Karpun Patir, ACS, Asstt. Commissioner and Executive Magistrate to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. Whereas, as per the report of the officers, Shri Amarendra Sharma, AFS (under suspension) failed to monitor the smooth clearance of the March ending bills/ cheques and he had done partiality in disbursing bills by breaking the sequence of Tokens issued. An F.I.R was also lodged by Shri Karpun Patir, ACS, Assistant Commissioner & Executive Magistrate, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, against Shri Amarendra Sharma, AFS (under suspension). Whereas, an amount of Rs. 4000.00 (Rupees Four thousand) was recovered from the drawer of the office of Shri Amarendra Sharma, AFS (under suspension) on 1st April, 2019 and on 3rd April, 2019, and a further sum of Rs. Whereas, an amount of Rs. 4000.00 (Rupees Four thousand) was recovered from the drawer of the office of Shri Amarendra Sharma, AFS (under suspension) on 1st April, 2019 and on 3rd April, 2019, and a further sum of Rs. 5,76,100.00 (Rupees Five lakh seventy six thousand one hundred) was recovered and seized from locked drawer of the office chamber of Shri Amarendra Sharma, AFS (under suspension) in presence of police and magistrate indicating that he had taken bribe in passing bills by breaking the sequence of Tokens issued. Whereas, Shri Amarendra Sharma, AFS was placed under suspension vide Memo No. FEB 123/2019/24 dated 8th April, 2019, and a departmental proceeding was initiated by issuing a show cause vide letter No. FEB. 123/2019/126 dated 27th Nov, 2019 with the drawing up of the following charges: Charge-1 "That while you were serving as Treasury Officer in the Treasury Office, Diphu, you had adopted various unfair means while passing the Bills submitted to the Treasury Office. Complaints were received from various persons, group of persons that you had preferred to consider Bills of one person to another without following the due procedure of issuing token serially. Being a senior Government servant, it should have been in your knowledge that the procedure you follow in a public office should be transparent and conform to the laid down standard so that it does not give the feeling to person that he/she has been discriminated- and that your action have not been transparent enough in terms of the laid down procedure. But despite complaints about your prejudicial nature of clearing the bills in consideration of bribes, you preferred not to change the objectionable means of clearing the Bills. Finally, the people aggrieved by your action had lodged complaints before the Superintendent of Police, Karbi Anglong, Diphu for taking needful action against you. The Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong District on receipt of the complaints against you appointed Shri Norsing Bey. ACS, and Additional Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong and Sri Karpun Patir, ACS, Assistant Commissioner and Executive Magistrate, Karbi Anglong, Diphu to conduct an enquiry in the allegations as reported and submit report. As per the report of enquiry officers, you were found not following the proper procedure for smooth clearance of the March ending Bills/ Cheques and you had done partiality in disbursing bills by breaking the precedence of issue of token against the Bills. As per the report of enquiry officers, you were found not following the proper procedure for smooth clearance of the March ending Bills/ Cheques and you had done partiality in disbursing bills by breaking the precedence of issue of token against the Bills. An F.I.R. had also lodged at Diphu Sadar Police Station against you. It is therefore evident that you were indulging in gross indiscipline in your office by deliberately neglecting the laid down principles and procedures required to be followed in a treasury office while dealing with the Bills and thereby setting an example before your juniors as to how to flout government practices. This of your behavior amounts to misconduct and is quite unbecoming of a Government servant. You are therefore charged with violation of Rule 3(1) (iii) of the Assam Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1965. " Charge-2: "That while you were working as Treasury Officer of Diphu Treasury, as per report of the Enquiry Officers, cashes amounting to Rs 4000 was recovered from your office and seized on 01/04/2019 by the Enquiry Officers ADC, accompanied by Magistrate and Police personnel led by DSP Diphu when the team visited to seal the office of the Treasury Officer, Diphu. As per the report, the money was recovered while opening one of the unlocked drawers. Keeping cash in your official drawer is sufficient to raise question about your integrity as it is unbecoming of a government servant. Again on 03/04/2019 when Diphu Treasury office was opened amidst presence of Magistrate, Police officers and staff, a search was conducted and subsequently an amount of Rs 5,76,100/- was found & seized. Since the money was recovered from the locked drawer of your office chamber along with your identity card. Such huge cash in your official drawer establishes the allegation that you were habituated in taking bribes using your official position for clearing the Bills for payments. There was no sanction order issued for drawl of the amount seized; moreover, as per Finance Department's instruction No.BB 253/2015/65 dated 18/08/2016 government money shall not to be transacted in cash. Had it been an amount payable to a person on bill, it should have been deposited in his personal account. On the other hand, banks do not authorize to draw such huge amount in a single day and your personal account does not show such drawl of money from banks. Had it been an amount payable to a person on bill, it should have been deposited in his personal account. On the other hand, banks do not authorize to draw such huge amount in a single day and your personal account does not show such drawl of money from banks. Thus, the money has come evidently from unknown sources which could be nothing but amount realized as bribes. This proves that you are a habitual receives of bribes. You have set an example of dishonesty leading to doubtful integrity. Your conduct is unbecoming of a government servant You are therefore charged with violation, of provision of Rule 3(1) (i) & and Rules 4(1) (2) (3) and (4) of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965." Whereas, to conduct enquiry on the charges made against Shri Amarendra Sharma, AFS (under suspension) Shri Ghanakanta Pegu, ACS, Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Finance Department was appointed as the inquiry officer and Smti. Malavika Choudhury, ACS, Additional Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Finance Department was appointed as the presenting officer vide order No. FEB. 123/2019/138-A dated 25th August,2020. The inquiry officer has submitted his report vide Memo No. FEB. 123/2019/53-74 dated 2nd February, 2022. Whereas, the report submitted by the inquiry officer in respect of the departmental proceedings was forwarded to the charged officer Shri Amarendra Sharma, AFS (under suspension) vide Memo No.1/127822/2023 dated 21st February, 2023. Whereas, Shri Amarendra Sharma, AFS (under suspension) submitted his written submission regarding the finding of the inquiry officer vide Tetter No. Nil dated 3rd March, 2023. Whereas, the above reply of the charged officer was examined by the department and it is found that the charged officer has neither raised any objection about the enquiry process nor placed any material on record to prove his innocence. Whereas, the appointing authority, that is, Finance Department, Govt. of Assam, after consideration of all the facts mentioned above, decided to impose a major penalty of dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment. . Whereas, as per procedure laid down in the Assam Services Discipline & Appeal Rule, 1964 (as amended), the Assam Public Service Commission was consulted vide endorsement dated 17th May, 2023. Whereas, the Assam Public Service Commission vide endorsement No. APSC/1709 dated 13th June, 2023 agreed to the penalty proposed to be imposed upon Shri Amarendra Sharma, AFS (under suspension). . Whereas, as per procedure laid down in the Assam Services Discipline & Appeal Rule, 1964 (as amended), the Assam Public Service Commission was consulted vide endorsement dated 17th May, 2023. Whereas, the Assam Public Service Commission vide endorsement No. APSC/1709 dated 13th June, 2023 agreed to the penalty proposed to be imposed upon Shri Amarendra Sharma, AFS (under suspension). In view of above, I, Syed Isfaqur Rahman, IAS, Secretary to the Govt. of Assam remove Shri Amarendra Sharma, AFS (under suspension) from the Assam Financial Service with immediate effect and this shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment. The suspension period of Shri Amarendra Sharma, AFS (under suspension) with effect from 08/04/2019 till the date of his compulsory removal will be treated as suspension only for all purposes. He will not be entitled to any salary for his period under suspension on the principle of no work no pay, except the subsistence allowance already granted. The period of suspension will not be counted for pension purpose. This order is issued with approval of the competent authority. Signed by Syed isfaqur Rahman Date: 19.07.2023 10:41:42 Secretary to the Govt. of Assam Finance (Establishment- B) Department” 10. Reading of the aforesaid impugned dismissal order, it is apparent that the respondent authorities have relied on the preliminary inquiries as well as the Inquiry Report and have come to the conclusion that the petitioner had violated the procedures and also received bribe which amounts to misconduct. 11. Before proceeding further in the matter, pertinent that the disciplinary inquiry which was conducted against the petitioner clearly acquitted the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. It further appears that the Inquiry Officer after referring to the charge-sheet, referred to the two Preliminary Inquiry Reports and also taken into consideration the reply of the petitioner against the statement of allegations and also recorded statements of witnesses and thereafter concluded that the petitioner may reasonably be acquitted against the charge alleged. However, it appears that the disciplinary authority did not accept the said findings of the Inquiry Officer and dismissed the petitioner from service. 12. Thus, the question that arises for adjudication in the present writ petition is whether the order of the dismissal passed by the disciplinary authorities without giving the reasons for disagreement of the findings of the Inquiry Report is valid and legal. 13. 12. Thus, the question that arises for adjudication in the present writ petition is whether the order of the dismissal passed by the disciplinary authorities without giving the reasons for disagreement of the findings of the Inquiry Report is valid and legal. 13. Apt to refer to 9A of the Rules which is reproduced hereinunder for ready reference : “9A. Communication of orders- Orders made by the Disciplinary Authority shall be communicated to the Government servant who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the Disciplinary Authority and a copy its findings on each charge, or where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority, a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority and a statement of the findings of the Disciplinary Authority together with brief reasons for its disagreements, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority (unless they have already been supplied to him) and also a copy of the advice, if any, given by the Commission, and where the Disciplinary Authority has not accepted the advice of the Commission, a brief statement of the reasons for such non-acceptance". 14. Reading of the aforesaid provision, it is manifest apparent that in the event the disciplinary authority is not accepting the findings of the Inquiry Authority, it is imperative for the disciplinary authority to furnish a copy of the report of the Inquiry Authority along with the statement of the findings of the disciplinary authority together with brief reasons for its disagreement before proceeding in the matter. 15. Reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank (supra), wherein the Apex Court has held that if the disciplinary authority is required to give opportunity of representation to charged employee before deferring with the findings of the Inquiry Officer which is favourable to the charged employee. Paragraph 17 and 19 of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference. “17. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit’s case (supra) 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. “17. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit’s case (supra) 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 inquiry officer had given an adverse finding, as per Karunakar’s case (supra) 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 inquiry 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 inquiry 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 inquiry 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 inquiry 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. 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 inquiry 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 inquiry 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 inquiry officer. The report of the inquiry 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 inquiry 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.” 16. Reference is also made to the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Kishan (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held that omission of stating reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer by the disciplinary authorities is fatal. Paragraph 10 of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference. “10. The next question is whether the show-cause notice is valid in law. It is true, as rightly contended by the counsel for the appellant, that the show-cause notice does not indicate the reasons on the basis of which the disciplinary authority proposed to disagree with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer. 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 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. But, on the facts in this case, the only charge which was found to have been accepted is that the appellant had used abusive language on the superior authority. Since the disciplinary authority has said that it has agreed partly to that charge, the provisional conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority in that behalf even in the show-cause notice, cannot be said to be vague. Therefore, we do not find any justification to hold that the show-cause notice is vitiated by an error of law, on the facts in this case.” 17. Therefore, it is abundantly established that the disciplinary authority in the event disagrees the Inquiry Report which is favourable to the delinquent, the findings of the disciplinary authority along with reasons for disagreement has to be given to the charged employee in order to give him an opportunity to pursued the disciplinary authority to accept the finding of the inquiry officer which is favourable to him. 18. In the present case, it is apparent reading of the purported second Show-Cause Notice dated 21.02.2023 that though the findings of the Inquiry Officer in favour of the petitioner was not accepted, however, no such findings of the disciplinary authority or the reasons for disagreements had been furnished to the petitioner before taking a decision of imposing major penalty to the petitioner. The argument of Mr. Borpujari that the disciplinary authorities having accepted the inquiry report and therefore there was no requirement in law for providing reasons for disagreement is totally fallacious. The conclusion of the Inquiry Report clearly states that the petitioner may reasonably be acquitted from the charges levelled against him. The same being in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner replied to the show-cause notice by seeking exoneration and reinstatement. Since the disciplinary authorities, did not accept the findings of the inquiry report and imposed major penalty, it was imperative for the disciplinary authorities under Rule 9A of the Rules to provide the findings of the disciplinary authority along with the reasons for disagreement. Failure to supply the findings of the disciplinary authority along with the reasons for disagreement, the petitioner has been deprived the opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authorities to accept the conclusion of the inquiry officers. Failure to supply the findings of the disciplinary authority along with the reasons for disagreement, the petitioner has been deprived the opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authorities to accept the conclusion of the inquiry officers. Hence, the principles of natural justice has been grossly violated. Further, there is manifest violation and contravention of Rule 9A of the Rules. That being so, the impugned dismissal order is manifestly and palpably arbitrary, illegal, null and void on the face of the record. Undoubtedly, the charges levelled are grave in nature, but the same shall not absolve the respondent authorities to violate the principles of natural justice and the mandate of law. Since this Court is of the considered opinion that due to non communicating the findings of the disciplinary authority and the reasons of disagreement, the impugned dismissal order stands vitiated, this Court at this stage is not going into the other issues raised by the parties on merit and keeps the same open. Accordingly, the dismissal order dated 19.07.2023 is set aside and quashed. Resultantly, the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service in accordance with law. 19. However, taking into consideration the nature of charges, the respondent authorities if so advised, may proceed from the stage of issuing the second Show-Cause Notice against the petitioner in accordance with law. It is needless to clarify that on the reinstatement as directed above, the petitioner would be entitled to all service benefits, in accordance with law. 20. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of the observations and directions made above. No order to cost.