Disciplinary authority must give separate notice when differing with inquiry officer.

The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary authority must provide a separate notice when differing with the inquiry officer's findings in departmental proceedings. The Court emphasized the need for the authority to set out tentative conclusions and allow the officer to respond before final decisions are made. As the appellant was not given a proper notice regarding the differing decision, the Court allowed the appeal, overturning the High Court's decision. The proceedings were directed to recommence from the issuance of a fresh show-cause notice by the disciplinary authority.

---

---

Issues:
1. Entitlement to notice from disciplinary authority to show cause against tentative decision differing with inquiry officer's finding.

Analysis:
The appellant faced departmental proceedings where the inquiry officer exonerated them from all charges. However, the disciplinary authority provisionally decided to impose a major penalty of removal without giving a separate notice for the appellant to show cause against this decision. The disciplinary authority found two out of three charges proved and concluded that the appellant was not fit to be retained in service, leading to the appellant's removal from service. The appellant challenged these decisions through a writ petition, arguing that separate show-cause notices were required if the disciplinary authority differed with the inquiry officer. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that one combined notice sufficed for both the differing decision and proposed punishment.

In the Supreme Court's analysis, it was highlighted that the consistent view taken by the Court required the disciplinary authority to provide a notice setting out tentative conclusions if differing with the inquiry officer. The Court referenced the Punjab National Bank case, emphasizing the need for the disciplinary authority to record tentative reasons for disagreement and allow the delinquent officer to represent before final findings are recorded. This principle was reiterated in the Yoginath D. Bagde case, emphasizing the importance of providing an opportunity for the officer charged with misconduct to present their case before final decisions are made.

The Supreme Court found that no notice was given before the disciplinary authority recorded its final conclusions differing from the inquiry officer's findings. The show-cause notice issued was solely against the proposed punishment, lacking the necessary notice regarding the differing decision. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision and directing the recommencement of proceedings from the issuance of a fresh show-cause notice by the disciplinary authority indicating tentative disagreement with the inquiry officer's findings. No costs were awarded in this matter.

---