J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)

The Appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of his Writ Petition, the challenge in which was to the order of the first respondent made in an Appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the second respondent imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect.

2. The appellant an Assistant in the office of the Sub Registrar at Annur, was functioning as an in-charge Sub Registrar on 05.11.2008. There was a surprise inspection by the Vigilance Party on the said date and based on the statements given by some of the persons, who were found in the office of the Sub Registrar, the appellant was charged with a delinquency of demanding bribe to the tune of Rs.44,350/-. It was further found that there was a short fall of about Rs.554/- in the cash balance and as a consequence, a charge memo was issued to the appellant charging him with two charges one for dereliction of duty and the other for demanding bribe.

3. An officer at the cadre of the District Registrar was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, at the enquiry all the persons, who had given statements before the Vigilance Party during the surprise inspection had turned turtle and disowned their statements. They claimed that they had the money for their own purposes and not for being given as a gift to the employees of the Sub Registrar’s Office. As far as the short fall is concerned, it was the contention of the appellant that since the raid party came in between, money payable for some of the receipts that were generated was not received, which resulted in a short fall and later the said money was received and the account was settled.

4. Left without any other alternative, the Enquiry Officer returned a finding that the charges have not been proved. The Disciplinary Authority decided to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer. While doing so, unfortunately the Disciplinary Authority recorded its conclusion that the charges were proved. It is settled law in service jurisprudence that the Disciplinary Authority, who proposes to disagree or differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer should record its tentative reasons for such difference and call upon the delinquent employee to show cause, as to why, the charges should not be held to have been proved.

5. In the case on hand, the Disciplinary Authority rightly issued a show cause notice, disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, but it committed a mistake while recording the tentative reasons,.The annexure to the notice dated 07.05.2012 which conveys the decision of the Disciplinary Authority to differ from the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer reads as follows:

“tprhuiz mYtyh; rhl;rpfs;

jpU/T/"hdnrfh;. fhty; Ma;thsh; kw;Wk; jpU/R.cwhpfpUc&;zd;. khtl;l Ma;t[f;FG mjpfhhp Mfpnahh;fspd; thf;FK:yji; j ftdj;jpy; bfhz;L ghprPypf;fhky; tprhuiz mwpf;if mspjJ; s;shh;/ ,e;epiyapy; tprhuiz mwpf;ifapypUe;J khWgl;L Fw;wr;rhl;L epUgzkhtjhf fUjg;gLfpwJ/”

This according to the learned counsel for the appellant would amount to the Disciplinary Authority prejudging the issue without giving an opportunity to the delinquent employee.

6. Mr.Ravi learned counsel appearing for the appellant would invite our attention to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in 1998 (7) SCC 84, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has pointed out the procedure that is to be followed by a Disciplinary Authority when it proposes to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. After referring to the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Managing Director, ECIL v. B.Karunakar, reported in 1993 (4) SCC 727, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held as follows:

“17. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit's case quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. The aforesaid passages clearly bring out the necessity of the