ORDER : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing the impugned orders bearing Nos. (1) KaNiIn(V)/HSR/Le/SaLe/Si(Sa)/86 (2) KaNiIn(V)/HSR/Le/SaLe/SI(Sa)/87 (3) KaNiIn(V)/JaV/138-142 (4) KaNiIn(V)/JaV/118-122 (5) KaNiIn(V)/JaV/113-117 (6) KaNiIn(V)/JaV/123-127 (7) KaNiIn(V)/JaV/143-147 (8) KaNiIn(V)/JaV/128-132 (9) KaNiIn(V)/JaV/133-137 (10) KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa(Si)25-26/163-166 (11) KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa (SI)25-26/159-162 (12) KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa (Si)25-26/139-142 (13) KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa (Si)25-26/119-122 (14) KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa (Si)25-26/147-150 (15) KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa (Si)25-26/127-130 (16) KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa (Si)25-26/143-146 (17) KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa (Si)25-26/131-134 (18) KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa(Si)25-26/123-126 (19) KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa (Si)25-26/151-154 (20) Da/KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa(Sa)25-26/71-76 (21) Da/KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa (Sa)25-26/89-94 (22) Da/KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa(Sa)25-26/83-88 (23) Da/KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa(Sa)25-26/77-82 (24) Da/KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa (Sa)25-26/107-112 (25) Da/KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa(Sa)25-26/113-118 (26) Da/KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa(Sa)25-26/95-100 (27) Da/KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa(Sa)25-26/101-106 (28) Da/KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa (Sa)25-26/119-124 (29) Da/KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa (Sa)25-26/125-131 all dated 03.04.2025 (30) KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLe-1/BESCOM/Harihara V/2025-26/145-49 dated 05.04.2025 (31) KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLe/HiSa(Si)/71-74 dated 03.04.2025 (32) KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLe/HiSa(Si)/67-70 dated 03.04.2025 (33) KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLe/HiSa(Si)/71-74 dated 03.04.2025 (34) Ma/KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa (Si)/2025-26/58-63 dated 03.04.2025 (35) KaNiIn(V)/Le/SaLeHa(Si)/34-38 dated 03.04.2025 (36) Ma/KaNiIn(V)/LeHa/SaLeHa/HiSa (Si)/2025-26/52-57 dated 03.04.2025 are produced as Annexures-F and F1 to F35 respectively, as being arbitrary, illegal, passed without application of mind, and in violation of the principles of natural justice; b. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order, ?? direction, directing the Respondents, particularly the 4th Respondent, to consider and act upon the Enquiry Report dated 29.04.2023, submitted by the Enquiry Officer Sri H.M. Nanjundaswamy, which are produced herewith as Annexures-C and C1 to C35 Vide enquiry No.s 112/2021- 22, 111/2021-22, 04/2021, 09/2021, 08/2021, 10/2021, 05/2021, 06/2021, 81/2021, 34/2021, 33/2021, 36/2021, 35/2021, 29/2021, 31/2021, 30/2021, 28/2021, 37/2021, 40/2021, 90/2021-22, 92/2021-22, 91/2021-22, 87/2021-22, 86/2021-22, 89/2021-22, 85/2021-22, 88/2021-22, 98/2021-22, 97/2021-22, 115/2021-22, 73/2021, 68/2021, 72/2021, 25/2021, 17/2021, 24/2021 respectively and to pass appropriate and reasoned orders in accordance with law; c. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or such other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondents to release all service benefits withheld from the Petitioners during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings, including but not limited to salary arrears, consideration for promotion, consequential seniority, and all other attendant benefits, strictly in terms of the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court In W.A.No.261/2020; d Pass such other and further orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard the arguments of Sri. Srinivasan Raghavan.V, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Sriranga.S, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. 3. 2. Heard the arguments of Sri. Srinivasan Raghavan.V, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Sriranga.S, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that, at the instance of the respondents, the Division Bench appointed Sri. H.M.Nanjundaswamy, retired District Judge as an Enquiry Officer. The petitioners appeared before the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer has submitted a report stating that the Disciplinary Authority has failed to prove the charges made against the petitioners-Assistant Linemen that the marks produced by them to the Disciplinary Authority is fake one. On the basis of the enquiry report, respondent Nos.2 to 10 issued a show-cause notice. The show-cause notice is in the form of a final order. He also submits that, there is no reference about the Enquiry Officer’s report in the show-cause notice and no detailed reasons have been assigned to disagree with the report of the Enquiry Officer. Respondent Nos.2 to 10, before issuing a show-cause notice and impugned order, have not applied their mind. He also submits that, if the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, they must assign detailed reasons. They have not assigned any reasons. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 10 submits that, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and as per Regulation 11(A)(2) of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employees' (Classification, Disciplinary Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1987 (‘CDCA Regulations’ for short), the Disciplinary Authority having disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, has recorded its sufficient reasons for disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and subsequently issued a show-cause notice to the petitioners. The petitioners did not deny the entire contents of the show-cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority, being dissatisfied with the replies submitted by the petitioners, has passed the impugned orders. The impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority are in accordance with the Regulations. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the parties. 6. There is no dispute that the respondent has invited applications for the posts of Assistant Linemen. The petitioners have applied for the said post and subsequently, after due procedure, the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Linemen. 5. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the parties. 6. There is no dispute that the respondent has invited applications for the posts of Assistant Linemen. The petitioners have applied for the said post and subsequently, after due procedure, the petitioners were appointed as Assistant Linemen. The petitioners have submitted their original marks cards. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (‘BESCOM’ for short) has sent for verification of those marks cards. The BESCOM came to know that some of the petitioners, by producing the fake marks cards, got appointments. Immediately after coming to know that the petitioners have produced the fake marks cards, respondent Nos.2 to 10 passed an order of dismissal from service. The petitioners and similarly placed employees, aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, preferred several writ petitions. The said writ petitions came to be allowed and the orders of dismissal were set aside. The BESCOM, aggrieved by the orders passed in the said writ petitions, preferred writ appeals in WA No.261/2020 and connected matters. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said appeals filed by the BESCOM and appointed one Sri. H.M.Nanjundaswamy, the retired District Judge, as an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry regarding the marks cards submitted by the petitioners and thereafter, the said Enquiry Officer submits a report to the BESCOM. Subsequent to the appointment of the Enquiry Officer by the Division Bench, the petitioners appeared before the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer recorded the evidence of each petitioner and perused the records and submitted reports as per Annexures-C to C35. After the receipt of enquiry reports, the Disciplinary Authority has disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and issued show-court notices i.e., Annexures-D to D35 calling upon the petitioners to reply to the disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioners replied to the show-cause notices vide Annexures-E to E29. Perused the show-cause notices. From the perusal of the show-cause notices, it is clear that there is no reference about the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 7. The Disciplinary Authority, without referring to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, has issued show-cause notices and further, the show-cause notices are in the form of final orders. Perused the show-cause notices. From the perusal of the show-cause notices, it is clear that there is no reference about the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 7. The Disciplinary Authority, without referring to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, has issued show-cause notices and further, the show-cause notices are in the form of final orders. Before the receipt of replies from the petitioners, the respondents-Disciplinary Authority was already predetermined to terminate the petitioners from service. Further, from the perusal of the impugned notices and orders, there is no reference about the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. 8. To consider the case on hand, it is necessary to examine Regulation 11A of the CDCA Regulations, which reads as follows: “ [11] [A] 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 Regin.-11 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 own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. [3] If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its fin dings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that one or more of the penalties specified in Regln.-9 should be im??sed on the Board employee, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Regln.-12, make an order imposing such penalty.” From the perusal of the Regulation, it is clear that, if the Disciplinary Authority, if it is dissatisfied with the reasoning recorded by the Enquiry Officer, then the Disciplinary Authority shall record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. In the instant case, admittedly the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the reasons assigned by the Enquiry Officer, however, no reasons have been assigned by the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned orders as well as in the show-cause notices, that on what grounds the Disciplinary Authority is disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. In the instant case, admittedly the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the reasons assigned by the Enquiry Officer, however, no reasons have been assigned by the Disciplinary Authority in the impugned orders as well as in the show-cause notices, that on what grounds the Disciplinary Authority is disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority, considering Clause (2) of Regulation 11A of CDCA Regulations, has passed orders stating that the materials placed on record are sufficient to pass the impugned orders. The impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority is not in accordance with Regulation 11A(2) of the CDCA Regulations. Further, as the Disciplinary Authority has not properly considered the findings of the Enquiry Officer, hence, on this ground alone, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 9. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed ii. The impugned orders vide Annexures-F to F35 are quashed; iii. The respondents-Disciplinary Authority is directed to hold further enquiry and thereafter, pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law; iv. Smt. Premavathi Managoli, retired District Judge, is appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry regarding the marks cards submitted by the petitioners and submit a report to the Disciplinary Authority within 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; v. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners into service with all consequential benefits within 8 weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this order; vi. All the contentions of the parties are kept open; vii. In view of the disposal of the petition, pending IAs do not survive for consideration and accordingly, stand disposed of.