The Disciplinary Authority must expressly state that it differs from the findings recorded in the enquiry report and then indicate the nature of the action proposed to be taken against the delinquent officer. Failure to do so violates the principles of natural justice and renders the disciplinary proceeding invalid.

( 1 ) IN this Rule the petitioner prays for quashing an order of his dismissal from service. Briefly, the facts set out are as follows:

( 2 ) THE petitioner was a process server In the office of the Income Tax Certificate at No. 169, Lower Circular Road, Calcutta. While so working there he was criminally prosecuted for accepting illegal gratification from one Hiralal Ghosh, Accountant of a Firm E. R. Joseph and Co. , at No. 9, Waterloo Street. On or about 21st April, 1961 the Investigating Officer made an application for discharge of the petitioner on the ground that no sanction of the petitioner's appointing authority could be obtained on the ground of insufficient evidence. The petitioner was accordingly discharged by the Chief Presidency Magistrate. Calcutta.

( 3 ) IN the meantime a disciplinary proceeding was started. Charge-sheet was issued by the Collector, 24 Parganas charging the petitioner with "taking illegal gratification of Rs. 150/- from said Hiralal Ghosh of the said firm". The petitioner submitted his written explanation. Thereafter, an enquiry was held by Sri A. Sen, Deputy Collector and eventually a report was submitted recommending the petitioner's dismissal from service on a finding that the petitioner at least demanded illegal gratification from Hiralal.

( 4 ) UPON this report a second show cause notice was issued upon the petitioner by the Collector against his tentative decision of dismissal of the petitioner from his service on the basis that both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were found to have been established by the Enquiring Officer and he accepted them. In response to this notice the petitioner again submitted an explanation. The Collector, thereafter, by an order dated 18th March, 1965 dismissed him from his service on a finding that the petitioner was guilty of acceptance of illegal gratification. An appeal was preferred to the Commissioner, Presidency Division, who, however, by his order dated 24th June, 1965 dismissed the appeal. That is how the petitioner felt aggrieved and obtained the present Rule.

( 5 ) UPON these facts several grounds were taken but I find that the Rule was issued only on two limited grounds viz. , (B) and (C) of the petition.

( 6 ) IN support of the first ground Mr. Acharya on behalf of the petitioner contended that the Enquiring Officer only found the petitioner guilty of demanding and not of 'accepting illegal gratification'. He drew my attention to the penultimate paragraph of the report of the Enquiring Officer to show that acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner was not proved but relying on "preponderance of probabilities" the Enquiring Officer concluded that Monoranjan must have demanded illegal gratification. That being so, it was contended that the petitioner could not be dismissed from his service on a finding by the Disciplinary Authority that he accepted illegal gratification. I cannot accept the contention. Admittedly, the charge against the petitioner was that "he took illegal gratification of Rs. 150/- only from Hiralal Ghosh, Accountant of the aforesaid firm". So, it was open to the Disciplinary Authority to inflict punishment of dismissal provided such a charge was established. It may be that according to the Enquiring Officer the evidence was not sufficient to conclude that such a charge of accepting illegal gratification was established but that by no means could prevent the Disciplinary Authority to come to his own conclusion and impose penalty accordingly. Whether or not the charge or charges levelled against the delinquent servant have been established is the ultimate concern of the Disciplinary Authority. He is to enquire into the charges as a quasi-judicial body. An enquiry for establishment of such charges by another Officer is permissible but it is open to the Disciplinary Authority either to agree or to differ from the findings that may be made by the Enquiring Officer. In case of disagreement, on