JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. M. Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The appellants – Telangana Grameena Bank are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 25.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.18413 of 2019, whereby the impugned order of punishment dated 27.09.2018, the appellate order dated 07.03.2018 and the review order dated 09.07.2019 have been set aside. 3. The learned writ Court has held that the respondent/writ petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential service and monetary benefits including restoration of pay and seniority, which should be extended to him within eight weeks. The learned writ Court has, while doing so, taken into consideration that the respondent was denied opportunity of cross- examination and also held that the show cause notice dated 25.07.2017 was a predetermined exercise disclosing the mind of the disciplinary authority as to the punishment sought to be imposed. The learned writ Court also invoked the doctrine of proportionality while setting aside the impugned orders. 4. During the course of submissions though arguments had been addressed on the tenability of the aforesaid grounds for setting aside the impugned orders of punishment, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that while the other grounds may not be pressed on behalf of the respondent, the infirmity in the show cause notice dated 25.07.2017 cannot be supported by the appellants as the disciplinary authority has, at the stage of show cause notice and submission of enquiry report, revealed its mind as to the penalty proposed to be imposed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that if the learned writ Court was satisfied that the impugned proceedings suffer from procedural irregularity or the infirmity in the show cause notice, the mater ought to have been remanded to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Instead, the entire proceedings have been set aside though the charges were proved. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid limited facts and circumstances, without getting into the details of the nature of the charge or the findings of the enquiry officer, we are of the view that the matter deserves to be remanded to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order from the stage of issuance of show cause notice with the copy of the enquiry report. The show cause notice dated 25.07.2017 extracted hereunder explicitly discloses a predetermined set of mind of the disciplinary authority to the punishment sought to be imposed upon the respondent even before his reply or comments on the findings of the enquiry officer were submitted: “Lr. No.Gr.XII/2017-18/3829 Date: 25.07.2017 Sri Balakistaiah, (ID No.423), Regd.Post/Ack due Officer, MMGS-III, CONFIDENTIAL H.No.10-1-92/3-11-B, Janaki Enclave, Lingoji Guda, Saroornagar, HYDERABAD – 500 035. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS-SHOW CAUSE NOTICE Please refer to our Letter No.Gr.VII/2016-17/2289 dated 27.06.2016, advising the decision to conduct the enquiry into the charges alleged against you and communicated to you vide Charge sheet Lr.No.Gr.VII/2016-17/629 dated 30.04.2016. Sri A. Shankar Goud, Officer SMGS-IV/Chief Manager, T.G.B., Seetharampalli Branch (Presently working as Chief Manager, Accounts, T.G.B., H.O., Hyderabad) was appointed as inquiring authority to hold regular enquiry proceedings against the CSO, vide H.O.Lr.No.Gr.VII/2016-17/2290 dated 27.06.2016, to conduct the enquiry and submit his report. 2. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiring Authority (IA) has submitted his report dated 13.06.2017 and a copy of the same is enclosed. I hereby propose to impose on you the punishment of “Reduction of basic pay by (3) stages i.e., from Rs.54,410/- to Rs.50,030/- in the scale for a period of three years as per the pay structure of the Bank. You will not earn any increments to your pay and not eligible for promotion during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponement of your future increments. These reduced increments will be earned by you on expiry of three years period from the date of my order at the rate of one per year”. 3. You are hereby, advised to submit your representation, if any, thereon within 10 days from the date of receipt of this letter. 4. Please note that, in case we do not receive any submissions before the above stipulated time, it will be deemed that you have no submissions to make and a suitable decision will be taken in the matter. 5. Please return the duplicate copy of this letter duly acknowledged by you with date. Yours faithfully, Sd/- DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY/CHAIRMAN” 7. 4. Please note that, in case we do not receive any submissions before the above stipulated time, it will be deemed that you have no submissions to make and a suitable decision will be taken in the matter. 5. Please return the duplicate copy of this letter duly acknowledged by you with date. Yours faithfully, Sd/- DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY/CHAIRMAN” 7. The requirement of issuance of a show cause notice upon submission of the enquiry report upon the delinquent in a case where the disciplinary authority and enquiry officer are two different persons has been specified in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others vs. B. Karunakar and others , [ (1993) 4 SCC 727 ]. 8. The purpose is to enable the delinquent to submit his comments on the findings of the enquiry officer so that the disciplinary authority, who is of separate entity, can take an informed decision on the penalty to be proposed on the basis of the enquiry report and the reply furnished by the delinquent. 9. In the instant case, the show cause notice apart from providing copy of the enquiry report inviting comments of the delinquent officer has fully disclosed his mind about the proposed punishment which cannot be sustained. If the proceedings suffer from this infirmity, the right course is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh show cause notice and pass order on the penalty to be imposed upon the respondent on consideration of his reply. In this regard, reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.P. State Electricity Board Limited vs. Mahesh Dahiya , [AIR 2016 Supreme Court 5341] where reliance has also been placed upon the constitutional Bench judgment in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra). 10. The impugned judgment is therefore set aside. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to issue fresh show cause notice with the copy of the enquiry report, asking the delinquent officer to submit his comments thereupon and take a decision in accordance with law. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.