The central legal point established is the obligation of the Disciplinary Authority to record reasons for disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's findings and to follow the principles of natural justice.

1. - By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to quash the order Annx. R/2 dated 28-6-1996 awarding the penalty of censure and a direction to consider his case for promotion on the post of Lower Division Clerk with all consequential benefits.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument to the challenge of the impugned order Annx.R/2 dated 28-6-1996 awarding the penalty of censure to the petitioner.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was served with the charge sheet Annx.R/1 dated 16-6-1993, however after holding an inquiry, the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner, but without assigning any reasons for disagreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, vide impugned order Annx.R/2 dated 28-6-1996, held that the charge levelled against the petitioner in the charge-sheet certainly gives an indication that the petitioner is in the habit of indulging in such acts, omission and commission and thereby causes a doubtful situation. However, while deciding about the punishment, the Disciplinary Authority, after taking into account all the factors and relevant facts of the case and considering the principles of natural justice, giving benefit of doubt, imposed the penalty of censure. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there being absolutely no material on record to show that the petitioner is in the habit of indulging in any act prejudicial to the interest of the respondent bank, or omission or commission, mentioned in the impugned order Annx.R/2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, even there was no such charge that the petitioner is in the habit of indulging in such acts, omission and commission and, therefore, in absence of any material, it cannot be said to have established that the petitioner is, in fact, in the habit of indulging in such acts, omission or commission prejudicial to the interest of the respondent bank. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the charge-sheet Annx.R/1 dated 16-6-1993, there has been no such averment that the petitioner is in the habit of indulging in such act, omission or commission and the chargesheet, as spelled in Annx.R/1 is that on 17-10-1992, while the petitioner was posted at UCO Bank, Thanwla Branch, one customer Chhitar Mal, who is said to have taken loan, came to the bank for depositing the amount of Rs. 500/- as against the loan, the petitioner was asked by the Assistant Branch Manager Shri B.L. Mittal to take signatures of customer Chhitar Mal as an acknowledgement to the loan amount, but apart from taking signatures of Chhittar Mal on the loan acknowledgement, the petitioner got his signatures on two blank promissory notes. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this fact has not been established by the respondent bank during the inquiry and, therefore, the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is true that the Disciplinary Authority is not bound to accept the report of the Enquiry Officer and he could have taken its own view disagreeing with the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, but then the Disciplinary Authority was required to record the reasons of such disagreement, whereas in the order Annx.R/2, no such reasons have been assigned by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank & ors. v. Kunj Bihari Misra, JT 1998 (5) SC 548 and Nanak Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 274 , and the decisions of this Court in Bagda Ram v. State of Rajasthan & ors., RLR 1992 (2) 579 , Gopa Ram v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2002 (3) WLC (Raj.) 1 (D.B.) , and Prabhu Lal Agarwal v. The State of Rajasthan, 1991