JUDGMENT

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, C.J. — This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 1.12.1998 (Annex-1) by which the punishment order had been passed against the petitioner after holding Disciplinary Proceedings.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that the petitioner the then Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM) was served with a charge sheet containing nine charges of granting bail for extraneous consideration when he was posted at Nawarangpur. For that purpose, this Court appointed the Enquiring Officer, who after completing the enquiry meeting all the re¬quirement of law and principles of natural justice submitted the Enquiry Report dated 20.10.1997 exonerating the petitioner from all the charges. The Enquiry Report was considered by this Court on administrative side. The Court cautioned the officer and asked to be careful in future, he was kept under observation. It was directed that these facts be reflected in his C.C.Rs. Further the period during which he remained under suspension was to be treat¬ed as such. Hence this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mohanty has submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner had been exonerated of all the nine charges, it was not permissible for the Court to impose any kind of punishment whatsoever and that too without disagreeing with the Enquring Officer and recording the reasons for such disagreement. Therefore, the punishment is liable to be quashed.

4. On the contrary, Sri. P. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel has submitted that undoubtedly the Enquiring Officer had exonerated the petitioner from all the nine charges, but as the Full Court had been of the considered opinion that he had not acted in good faith, minor punishment had been imposed only treating the period of suspension as such. Therefore, no inter¬ference is called for.

5. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.

6. It is settled legal proposition that scope of judicial review of Disciplinary Proceedings is negligible and the Court should not interfere unless the order is found suffering from illegality or perversity. Review lies against the process in decision making and not against the decision itself.

7. In the instant case, nine charges had been framed against the petitioner and he was exonerated of all the charges by the enquirying Officer giving twenty eight page report. Thus it cannot be held that the report was not given exonerating him on each individual charge. In case the High Court was of the view that the Enquiry Officer had not appreciated the evidence cor¬rectly, the Court could reach different conclusion by recording reasons and then show cause notice ought to have been issued to the petitioner for giving reply to the same. Recording reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report is a condition precedent to proceed against a delinquent officer. Further, he has to be given an opportunity to meet the same.

8. If the competent authority does not agree with the Inquiry Officer, he must record reasons for disagreement and supply the same to the delinquent to file his comments/objec¬tions. Otherwise the order would stand vitiated for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice.

9. In Punjab National Bank & Ors., v. Kunj Behari Misra, AIR 1998 SC 2713, the Apex Court considered this issue observing as under :

“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 thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer contain¬ing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have