ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing legality, validity and correctness of order dated 14.02.2014 (Annexure P/1), by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging order dated 28.01.2002 (Annexure P/8), whereby the petitioner was inflicted with penalty of stoppage of five annual increments with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.21,407/- in exercise of powers under Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (henceforth shall be referred to as the “CCA Rules 1966”) has been rejected. 2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on following factual background: 2.1. The petitioner while posted at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Kusumi, was issued a charge-sheet on 21.02.1997 (Annexure P/2), alleging five charges against him. Following that, an enquiry was conducted and on conclusion of the enquiry, the first enquiry report was submitted by the Divisional Deputy Commissioner, Tribal Welfare on 30.06.1999 (Annexure P/3) holding that no charges against the petitioner were found proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority directed for second enquiry against the petitioner and the second enquiry report was submitted by the Deputy Collector, Surguja on 16.04.2001 (Annexure P/4), but again none of the five charges against the petitioner were found proved. 2.2. Subsequently, vide order dated 14.06.2001 (Annexure P/5), the disciplinary authority while taking dissenting view on the enquiry reports, directed the petitioner to submit a representation/explanation. In compliance with the same, the petitioner submitted his representation, which was found to be unsatisfactory by the disciplinary authority and vide the impugned order dated 28.01.2002 (Annexure P/8), the petitioner was imposed with penalty of stoppage of five annual increment with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.21,407/-. The petitioner felt aggrieved with the impugned order dated 28.01.2002, and preferred an appeal (Annexure P/9) under Rule 24 of the CCA Rules, 1966 before the Appellate Authority, however, the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 14.02.2014 (Annexure P/1), and against the said impugned orders this writ petition has been filed. 3. In this writ petition, it has been pleaded that the disciplinary authority exceeded its powers, while exercising powers conferred under Rule 15(2) of the CCA Rules, 1966, and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 4. Return has been filed by the respondents supporting the impugned orders being passed strictly in accordance with law. 5. Mr. 3. In this writ petition, it has been pleaded that the disciplinary authority exceeded its powers, while exercising powers conferred under Rule 15(2) of the CCA Rules, 1966, and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 4. Return has been filed by the respondents supporting the impugned orders being passed strictly in accordance with law. 5. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority is in the teeth of the provisions contained under Rule 15(2) of the CCA Rules, 1966 and also contrary to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Behari Mishra, AIR 1998 SC 2713 and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 6. Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned State counsel would support the impugned orders and submits that the petitioner did not raise any objection when he filed representation in reply to memo dated 14.06.2001 (Annexure P/5). As such, the impugned orders have been passed strictly in accordance with law and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 8. In order to consider the dispute so raised in the instant writ petition, it would be appropriate to notice Rules 15 (1) & (2) of the CCA Rules, 1966, which reads as under: “15. Action on the inquiry report: (1) The disciplinary authority if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of rule 14 as far as may be. (2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.” 9. (2) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.” 9. A careful perusal of the aforesaid Rule 15 would show that if the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the enquiry officer on any article of charge, he is obliged to firstly, record its own reasons for such disagreement and secondly, to further record its own findings on such charges based on the evidence available on record. 10. The question raised herein has also come up for consideration in the matter of Punjab National Bank (supra), in which at Para 19, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as under: “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 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.” 11. 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.” 11. The view taken by Court in the aforesaid Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1783 : AIR 1998 SC 2713 has consistently been approved and followed as is evident from the judgments in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 7 SCC 739 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1385 : AIR 1999 SC 3734 , SBI v. K.P. Narayanan Kutty, (2003) 2 SCC 449 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 185 : AIR 2003 SC 1100 , J.A. Naiksatam v. High Court of Bombay, (2004) 8 SCC 653 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1190 : AIR 2005 SC 1218 , P.D. Agrawal v. SBI, (2006) 8 SCC 776 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 43 : AIR 2006 SC 2064 , Ranjit Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 4 SCC 153 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 631 : AIR 2006 SC 3685 and S.P. Malhotra v. Punjab National Bank, (2013) 7 SCC 251 . 12. Reverting to the facts of the case and in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank (supra), it is quite vivid that in the instant case, the second enquiry report was submitted vide Annexure P/4, and none of the 05 charges were found proved by the enquiry officer in its report dated 16.04.2001 and there is no dispute about it. However, the disciplinary authority vide its memo dated 14.06.2001 (Annexure P/5) disagreed with the enquiry report and recorded its own finding on the charges and sought representation from the petitioner. However, the disciplinary authority vide its memo dated 14.06.2001 (Annexure P/5) disagreed with the enquiry report and recorded its own finding on the charges and sought representation from the petitioner. However, since the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the enquiry officer, the course required to be followed by the disciplinary authority was to record its tentative reasons for disagreement and ought to have provided an opportunity to the petitioner to represent himself, by conveying the report of the enquiry officer containing its findings, so that the petitioner would have an opportunity to convince the disciplinary authority that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer is just and proper and to persuade it to accept the favourable conclusions drawn by enquiry officer, which has not been done in the instant case. Instead, the disciplinary authority proceeded to record its final conclusion and while recording its disagreement, had sought representation from the petitioner and by rejecting his representation, proceeded to inflict the major penalty of stoppage of 05 increments with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.21,407/- which is in the teeth of Rule 15(2) of the CCA Rules, 1966 and the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank (supra) and others and also in violation of principles of natural justice. 13. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 28.01.2002 & 14.02.2014, passed by the disciplinary authority and affirmed by the appellate authority are hereby quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the disciplinary authority to proceed in accordance with law, if he wishes to do so. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No costs.