Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

W.P.(C) 2676/1998

1. A limited issue is urged on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner by this writ petition impugns the order which has been passed by the Departmental Authorities. Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by five stages in the same time scale for a period of five years with further stipulation that petitioner will not earn any increment of pay during the period of reduction and which will have the effect of postponing of future increments of pay. The Appellate Authority upheld the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. What the counsel for the petitioner argues is that Disciplinary Authority in the present case while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer arrived at a conclusion of guilt and then issued a show-cause notice only with respect to the penalty, and which is therefore illegal. It is argued that when the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority can only make a tentative finding and not a conclusive one, and the show cause notice which has to be issued cannot be for the penalty to be proposed, but has to be as to whether or not