13.3.2009 Present: Mr. H. S. Sall, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. for the respondents. CWP(T) No.3080/2008 (OA No.502/96) While functioning as Junior Engineer, petitioner is alleged to have misconducted himself. The alleged misconduct pertains to the period 1986-87. Petitioner was served with the charge-sheet and the Inquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. The Inquiry Officer, in terms of inquiry report (Annexure A-VIII) absolved the petitioner of the charges, but however, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer and in terms of order dated 15.6.1995 (Annexure A-I) imposed a penalty of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed in terms of orders dated 27.10.1995 (Annexure A-II), which is reproduced as under:- “Undersigned is directed to inform you that your appeal dated the 2nd August, 1995 addressed to the Hon’ble Governor, Himachal Pradesh against the orders of even No. dated the 15th June, 1995 has been considered and rejected.” I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. It is a matter of record that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the delinquent officer in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. It is also a matter of record that the disciplinary authority, before imposing penalty did not issue any notice to show cause indicating that the report furnished by the Inquiry Officer is not acceptable and that the further action as contemplated was to be taken against him. The Apex Court in Lav Nigam v. Chairman & MD, ITI Ltd. {2006(9) SCC 440} has categorically held that where the disciplinary authority is in disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to issue a notice to show cause giving an opportunity to the delinquent officer explaining the circumstances as to why the disciplinary authority should accept the report of the Inquiry Officer. In the present case, it has not been so done. Hence, the action of the Govt. in passing the impugned order dated 15.6.1995 is held to be illegal. The petitioner has not been afforded adequate opportunity which has resulted into violation of principle of natural justice and prejudiced his right of effective representation and hearing. Further order passed by the Appellate Authority is unreasoned. The Apex Court in Kothari Filaments & Anr. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port) & Ors. {2009(2) SCC 192} after reiterating its earlier decisions in A.K.Kraipak v. Union of India {1969 (2) SCC 262}, S. L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan {1980 (4) SCC 379} & Rajesh Kumar v. CIT {2007 (2) SCC 181} has held that where there is infraction of principle of natural justice and the orders passed does not assign any reason it would undoubtedly be illegal. Hence on this ground also the impugned order dated 27.10.1995 needs to be quashed. Ordered accordingly. The inquiry is in relation to the alleged misconduct pertaining to the year 1986. Before deciding, fair opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner and the Govt. shall conclude the inquiry, under all circumstances within a period of four months from today. The petition is allowed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. March 13, 2009 (rana)