As per case facts, the Petitioner, initially appointed as Class-2 Principal, faced delayed promotion and subsequent denial to a higher post due to departmental inquiries concerning alleged misconduct. Despite the ... Inquiry Officer exonerating him from all charges, the disciplinary authority disagreed, issued a show-cause notice, and ultimately imposed a penalty without adequately stating reasons for disagreement or providing a second show-cause notice after rejecting the Petitioner's reply. Higher authorities had opined to exonerate the Petitioner, but this was never formally communicated. The Petitioner challenged these actions due to procedural flaws, discrimination, delay, and the disciplinary authority exceeding the scope of the original charges. The question arose whether the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty imposed adhered to principles of natural justice and established legal procedures. Finally, the Court found fundamental procedural infirmities, including the lack of reasoned disagreement, absence of a final show-cause notice, and the non-speaking nature of the penalty order. It also noted discrimination and that the disciplinary authority went beyond the original charges. Consequently, the Court quashed both the penalty order and the review order, thereby exonerating the Petitioner from all charges.