JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. This is a writ in the nature of certiorari. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment as contained in Order No.5/Aarop-1- 130/2018-19743 (HRMS)/Ranchi dated 23.03.2023 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with a punishment of stoppage of two yearly increments with non-cumulative effect. Further prayer has been made to set aside the entire departmental proceeding which arises out of Resolution No.1616 (hrms) dated 04.04.2019. Further, prayer has been made to release the entire arrears of salary and other consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner, after setting aside the impugned order. 3. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 4. The petitioner was posted as Circle Officer, Sonahatu District, Ranchi, at the relevant point of time. 5. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner for which a charge-sheet was issued containing several charges. An Enquiry Officer was appointed. Opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself. After conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority. The said report is in favour of the petitioner as the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner from all the charges. Though, in one line, he stated that particular act of recommending the name of the petitioner’s wife in the revenue records in respect of some land was done by the petitioner but the same was without any ill motive, thus it cannot be said that there was malice on part of the petitioner which amounts to dereliction in duty nor it can be said to be a misconduct. The said enquiry report was perused and considered by the Disciplinary Authority and thereafter a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, mentioning therein that the charges were partially proved against the petitioner then why not a minor punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect be imposed upon the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was punished by the impugned order by imposition of punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. 6. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the Disciplinary Authority has differed with the report of the Enquiry Officer. Once the Disciplinary Authority differs, the reasons must be spelt out in the second show cause notice. Thereafter, the petitioner was punished by the impugned order by imposition of punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. 6. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the Disciplinary Authority has differed with the report of the Enquiry Officer. Once the Disciplinary Authority differs, the reasons must be spelt out in the second show cause notice. Without providing the reasons for differing in the second show cause notice, the Disciplinary Authority cannot impose any punishment. 7. Learned counsel representing the State submits that the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner had recommended to enter the name of his wife in the revenue records in respect of some land. This recommendation itself is a misconduct, thus, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly issued the second show cause notice to the petitioner differing with the enquiry report. She further submits that the punishment is minor which should not be interfered with. 8. The facts which have been narrated in para-5 of the writ petition is undisputed. The petitioner was subjected to a departmental enquiry. The enquiry report has been brought on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 9. As per Annexure-3, I find that the Enquiry Officer did not find any guilt of the petitioner. Though, in the second last paragraph, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is responsible for getting the name of his wife entered in the revenue records in respect of some land but the same was not done with any ulterior motive or with any bad intention and his act will not fall within the meaning of Rule 3 (1) (i) (ii) & (iii) of Jharkhand Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2016, and thus a specific finding has been arrived at that he should not be held guilty for that. 10. Admittedly, the entire enquiry report is in favour of the petitioner wherein the Enquiry Officer has not come to a conclusion that the petitioner has committed any misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner intimating the petitioner that in the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer has held that the charges are partially proved. Thereafter, the petitioner replied and the impugned order of punishment was passed. 11. It is well settled legal proposition that the Disciplinary Authority can differ with the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report. Thereafter, the petitioner replied and the impugned order of punishment was passed. 11. It is well settled legal proposition that the Disciplinary Authority can differ with the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report. It is also undisputed that after differing, the Disciplinary Authority can come to an independent finding on the guilt and impose appropriate necessary punishment. Further, the legal proposition which is undisputed is that if the Disciplinary Authority wants to differ from the findings of the enquiry report, it is incumbent upon the Authority to issue a second show cause notice giving reasons of its disagreement. This is the mandate of law and the basic need of principles of natural justice. Without giving a reason as to why he wants to differ with the enquiry report and the grounds of difference, no reply to the second show cause can be called for. The person who is supposed to reply to the second show cause notice needs to know the reasons based on which the Disciplinary Authority wants to differ, so that he can give a proper reply. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 , in para-19, has held that 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 recording its findings. It has been further held that the report of the Enquiry Officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed to the delinquent officer, who should be given an opportunity to persuade the Disciplinary Authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the Enquiry Officer. This is the basic need of principles of natural justice. 13. In this case, I find that though a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner but it lacks the reasons as to why the Disciplinary Authority differs with the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report, nor the grounds of difference have been mentioned. Without recording the reasons, the second show cause notice is incomplete and it cannot be termed as a proper second show cause notice, in compliance of the principles of natural justice. 14. Without recording the reasons, the second show cause notice is incomplete and it cannot be termed as a proper second show cause notice, in compliance of the principles of natural justice. 14. Considering what has been held above, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. The impugned order of punishment as contained in Order No.05/Aarop-1-130/2018-19743 (HRMS)/Ranchi dated 23.03.2023 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), is set aside. 15. The matter is remanded to the Disciplinary Authority to issue a fresh show cause notice, if he intends to do so, giving the reasons as to why he wants to differ with the enquiry report and proceed from that stage. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.