ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The only question in this appeal is whether the appellant was entitled to a notice from the disciplinary authority to show cause against the tentative decision of the disciplinary authority to differ with the finding of the inquiry officer.

3. The departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant. The inquiry officer exonerated the appellant by his report dated 10-3-1997 in respect of all three articles of charges.

4. The disciplinary authority passed an order on 7-7-1997 in which he stated:' a "Thus, after careful consideration of the evidence which has been produced for substantiating the charges one and two, the undersigned has provisionally come to the conclusion that Shri Lav Nigam, St. No. 247(0) is not a fit person to be retained in the services of the company and that a major penalty should be imposed on Shri Lav Nigam and accordingly proposes to impose on him the penalty of removal under Rule 25(j) of the b Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 of the ITI Ltd.

Now, therefore, Shri Lav Nigam is hereby given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed above. Any representation which he may wish to make against the pe