CWP(T) No. 6658 of 2008 18.08.2010 Present: Mr. R. P. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G. D. Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. There is no dispute that prior to issuance of the impugned order dated 6.5.1995, the disciplinary authority has not issued any notice to the petitioner. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer. Instead of affording an opportunity to respond or issuing show cause notice the disciplinary authority straight away imposed the penalty. 2. The Apex Court in SBI and others versus Arvind K. Shukla, (2004) 13 SCC 797 while reiterating its earlier view taken in Punjab National Bank versus Kunj Behari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 has held that when the disciplinary authority takes a view which is different than the report of the inquiry officer then the disciplinary authority is required to give tentative reasons and also afford opportunity to represent to the delinquent officer before any findings are recorded. Admittedly this opportunity has not been afforded to the petitioner. In view of the same impugned order dated 6.5.1995 is quashed. 3. The respondents are directed to continue with the inquiry from the stage prior to the passing of the impugned order. However, opportunity of hearing/representation shall be afforded to the petitioner. The inquiry proceedings pertain to the year 1993. Consequently respondents are directed to complete the inquiry proceedings within a period of three months -2- from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. August 18, 2010 (PK)