S. Haque, C.J. (Acting). — The petitioner is an Assistant Manager of the Food Corporation of India. He faced the departmental proceeding with specific charges during 1979-82. Mr. S. Swvigorados Deputy Manager held the inquiry being entrusted by the Disciplinary Authority. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Enquiring Officer had submitted the report with findings that the charges had not been proved against the petitioner. The Senior Regional Manager, Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of the Enquiring Officer. The charges being not proved and petitioner found not guilty, Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 21.8.1982 exonerated him. 2. The Managing Director of the Corporation vide his order dated 31.1.86/3.2.86 set aside the order dated .28.8.82 of the Disciplinary Authority and directed Senior Regional Manager to initiate fresh enquiry on the same charge of the earlier proceeding. The order was purported to have been made exercising power of review under Regulation 74 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations. This order of the Managing Director has been assailed. 3. It has been stated in the impugned order that the review was taken suo motu, but in the written objection petition to Misc.Case No.1574 of 1986 (C.R.No. 1286 of 1986) the Corporation stated that review was initiated on the complaint of C.B.I. The Managing Director was not sure on what basis the review was initiated. The Managing Director was of the view that the Enquiring Officer had wrongly admitted the documentary evidence at the hearing of the inquiry and held that the Enquiring Officer committed gross irregularity vitiating the proceeding. The Managing Directoi1 committed error in holding such a view. The Enquiring Officer made the report on the basis of oral and documentary evidence duly admitted at the hearing of the enquiry and the Disciplinary Authority was satisfied with that report and accepted the same. It was unreasonable for the Managing Director to take such a view after about four years of exoneration order. 4. The petitioner faced the disciplinary proceeding and was exonerated by the Disciplinary Authority after the proceeding was duly enquired into. It was not open for the Managing Director to review the order of the Disciplinary Authority ex-parte without notice to the petitioner and thereby depriving his right to say in the matter. The action and order of the Managing Director was a clear violation of natural justice. It was not open for the Managing Director to review the order of the Disciplinary Authority ex-parte without notice to the petitioner and thereby depriving his right to say in the matter. The action and order of the Managing Director was a clear violation of natural justice. Once the petitioner was exonerated by the Disciplinary Authority through regular disciplinary proceedings, interference by the Reviewing Authority after 4 years without notice and hearing the petitioner was illegal. A review aiming to scrutinise the result of a disciplinary proceeding can be initiated suo-motu or on a petition under Regulation 74 by the Reviewing Authority, but then it becomes obligatory on the Authority to extend opportunity of hearing to the party in whose favour the disciplinary proceedings had been terminated or who is likely to be adversely affected by any review order. The impugned owner dated 31.1.86/3.2.86 of the Managing Director are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, we quash the order. Re-opening of the closed proceedings after so many years would not be justified. 5. This writ petition is allowed making the rule absolute. We make no order as to costs. -