The disciplinary authority must provide a separate show-cause notice to the appellant when differing with the inquiry officer's findings, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

ORDERS

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 March 10, 1997 in respect of all three articles of charges.

4. The disciplinary authority passed an order on July 7, 1997 in which he stated:

"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(f) of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1975 of the ITI Ltd. Now, therefore, Shri Lav Nigam is hereby 1 given an opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed above. Any representation which he may wish to make against the penalty proposed 1 will be considered by the undersigned. If . any should be made in writing and submitted so as to reach the undersigned not later than 15 days from the date of receipt of this show-cause notice by Shri Lav Nigam."

5. The three articles of charges were set out by the disciplinary authority who also recorded in the body of the order that two of the three charges had been proved. The order concludes with the finding:

"This is a serious misconduct on the part of Shri Lav Nigam, an executive of manager level of a public sector undertaking company."

6. It also records that the disciplinary authority had provisionally come to the conclusion that the appellant was not a fit person to be retained in the service of the company and that a major penalty of removal 35 should be imposed under Rule 25(f). The appellant was given an opportunity of making representation in respect of the penalty proposed as we have noted above.

7. The appellant responded to the show-cause notice.

8. By an order dated May 22, 1998 the appellant was removed from service.

9. Challenging the orders of the respondent authorities the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. The appellant specifically raised the issue that the disciplinary authority was obliged to give a separate show-cause notice if the disciplinary authority differed with the inquiry officer. The High Court also held that there was no need to give two separate show-cause notices one before the disciplinary authority found against the employee while differing with the view of the inquiry officer, and another against the proposed punishment. It was further held that the two notices could be combined in one. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

10. The conclusion of the High Court was contrary to the consistent view taken by this Court that in case the disciplinary authority differs with the view taken by the, inquiry officer, he is bound to give a notice setting out his tentative conclusions to the appel1ant. It is only after hearing the appel1ant that the disciplinary authority would at al1 arrive at a final finding of guilt. Thereafter, the employee would again have to be served with a notice relating to the punishment proposed.

11. In Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra AIR 1998 SC 2713 : (1998) 7 SCC 84 : 1998-II-LLJ-809 a Bench of this Court considered Regulation 7(2) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977. The Regulation itself did not provide for the giving of any notice before the disciplinary authority 30 differed with the view of the enquiry officer.

This Court held at p. 818 of LLJ:

"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