JUDGMENT : (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.) 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ to set aside/quash the Order dated 17.06.15 (Annexure P-21), Order dated 13.10.14 (Annexure P-13), Show Cause Notice dated 16.05.13 (Annexure P-7), Show Cause Notice dated 19.08.13 (Annexure P-10) and Charge Sheet dated 16.12.10/ (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent authorities. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to grant the consequential benefits including promotion from back date, arrears of Pay & Allowances as well as other service benefits along with Interest which has been denied to the Petitioner due to impugned orders. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to refund the entire amount recovered from the Petitioner in pursuance to the order of recovery along with prevailing rate of interest. 10.4 Any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Range Forest Officer at Janakpur Forest Range, Manendragarh in the year 2009. The Article of charges was issued making allegations to the effect that- (i) a cheque of Rs. 20 lacs was obtained from the DFO, Manendragrah without furnishing bills and vouchers only on the basis of estimate, and (ii) difference of amount of Rs. 98,135/- was found during physical verification regarding work related to Soil & Water Conservation Program; Contour trench and Soil & Boulder Check Dam during the said period. He further submits that prior to the initiation of the inquiry; two preliminary inquiries were conducted in which no irregularity was found. In the third inquiry conducted by the complainant, the DFO, Manendragrah's allegations were found true and subsequently, a full-fledged inquiry was conducted and thereafter, an inquiry report was placed before disciplinary authority. It appears that the petitioner was exonerated from the allegations i.e. both the charges. The disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the inquiry report issued a show-cause notice on 16.05.2013. The disciplinary authority recorded a finding that both the charges were found proved against the petitioner and proposed the punishment of recovery of Rs. 98,135/- and further recommended the State Government to inflict major punishment on the petitioner. The disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the inquiry report issued a show-cause notice on 16.05.2013. The disciplinary authority recorded a finding that both the charges were found proved against the petitioner and proposed the punishment of recovery of Rs. 98,135/- and further recommended the State Government to inflict major punishment on the petitioner. The petitioner after receiving show-cause notice dated 16.05.2013 moved an application before the disciplinary authority itself for supply of inquiry report as the same was not served upon the petitioner. The punishment of recovery of Rs. 98,135/- and stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was inflicted upon the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.2014 by the State Government. Prior to the punishment order, an inquiry report was served upon the petitioner. He also submits that in the inquiry report, charges were found that were not proved against the petitioner. He argues that the disciplinary authority before recording any finding ought to have served notice upon the petitioner and the opportunity of hearing should have been afforded to him, therefore the show-cause notice issued by respondent No. 2 and the punishment order are liable to be quashed. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Yoginath D. Bagde Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr., (1999) 7 SCC 739 . 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes. He submits that after receipt of the inquiry report, a proper show-cause notice strictly in accordance with law was served upon the petitioner on 19.08.2013. He further submits that a reply was also filed by the petitioner and each detail was elaborated in the reply. He also submits that the petitioner filed a reply to the said show-cause notice thus; he waived his right to challenge the same. He argues that the inquiry report along with the recommendation of disciplinary authority was referred to the State Government for the imposition of major punishment and consequently, an order of recovery of Rs. 98,135/- was passed against the petitioner along with a stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 13.10.2014. He prays that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. 98,135/- was passed against the petitioner along with a stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 13.10.2014. He prays that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. The only issue involved in the present case is whether the disciplinary authority was required to serve notice before recording disagreement to the inquiry report. In the present case, it is not in dispute that before recording the disagreement, no show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner. The show-cause notice dated 19.08.2013 would show that disciplinary authority recorded a finding contrary to the finding arrived at by the Inquiry Officer and found both the charges proved and also proposed a punishment of recovery of Rs. 98,135/- and stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Yoginath D. Bagde (supra) while dealing with a similar issue in para 29 held that “the requirement of “hearing” in consonance with the principles of natural justice even at that stage has to be read into Rule 9(2) and it has to be held that before the disciplinary authority finally disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority, it would give an opportunity to hearing to the delinquent officer so that he may have the opportunity to indicate that the findings recorded by the inquiring authority do not suffer from any error and that there was no occasion to take a different view.” Para 29 of the aforementioned judgment is reproduced herein below:- 29. We have already extracted Rule 9(2) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 which enables the disciplinary authority to disagree with the findings of the enquiring authority on any article of charge. The only requirement is that it shall record its reasoning for such disagreement. The rule does not specifically provide that before recording its own findings, the disciplinary authority will give an opportunity of hearing to a delinquent officer. The only requirement is that it shall record its reasoning for such disagreement. The rule does not specifically provide that before recording its own findings, the disciplinary authority will give an opportunity of hearing to a delinquent officer. But the requirement of "hearing" in consonance with the principles of natural justice even at that stage has to be read into Rule 9(2) and it has to be held that before the disciplinary authority finally disagrees with the findings of the enquiring authority, it would give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer so that he may have the opportunity to indicate that the findings recorded by the enquiring authority do not suffer from any error and that there was no occasion to take a different 9 view, The disciplinary authority, at the same time, has to communicate to the delinquent officer the "TENTATIVE" reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiring authority so that the delinquent officer may further indicate that the reasons on the basis of which the disciplinary authority proposes to disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiring authority are not germane and the finding of "not guilty" already recorded by the enquiring h authority was not liable to be interfered with. With regard to the non-supply of the inquiry report as contended by Mr. Kashif Shakeel, from the perusal of the reply dated 06.10.2013 filed by the petitioner to the show-cause notice dated 19.08.2013, it is apparent that the reply was filed on the basis of inquiry report as all exhibits and witnesses were described in detail in that reply, therefore it cannot be presumed that such a reply was possible in the absence of the inquiry report. It appears that the inquiry report was served upon the petitioner prior to the issuance of the show-cause notice dated 19.08.2013 wherein the disciplinary authority recorded its disagreement with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Yoginath D. Bagde (supra) held that even if the rule does not provide for the issuance of notice before recording disagreement by the disciplinary authority such authority has to afford the opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer. The requirement of hearing is to be read in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The requirement of hearing is to be read in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Before the disciplinary authority finally disagrees with the finding recorded by the inquiring authority, it has to afford an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer so that he may have the opportunity to indicate that the findings recorded by the enquiring authority do not suffer from any error and that there was no occasion to take a different view. 6. In the present case, no such opportunity was afforded and the disciplinary authority recorded its disagreement with the inquiry report without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also proposed punishment which cannot be termed as show-cause notice before recording disagreement, therefore, the show-cause notice dated 19.08.2013; punishment order dated 13.10.2014 and order passed in appeal dated 17.06.2015 are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh show-cause notice before recording its disagreement and initiate the proceedings from that stage. 7. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of.