Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against an order dated 10-12-1991 passed by the respondent No. 3 Deputy Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna which in Annexure-8 to the writ application, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been reverted to a lower time scale of pay of Rs. 1, 200-30-1, 800 being the scale of pay admissible to a Correspondence Clerk from the post of Selection Grade Senior Accounts Clerk in the scale of pay of Rs. 1, 500-50-2, 050-60-2, 750. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Accounts Clerk in the year 1973. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him in the year 1980. In the first departmental enquiry be was exonerated but allegedly another departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner inter alia was that he left the head quarters without permission. 3. The petitioner filed a show-cause denying the charges framed against him. The Enquiry Officer (Executive Engineer) held that the said charge has not been proved. The Superintending Engineer also agreed with the aforementioned finding of the Enquiry Officer. It was, however, found that although there were some mistakes in the accounts, the same were neither serious in nature, nor the petitioners action in relation thereto was mala fide. The State of Bihar however, passed an order dated 14-9-1983 whereby a punishment for stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed to the petitioner. 4. The petioner filed an application before the Bihar State Administrative Tribunal, Patna, which was registered as Service Case No. 123 of 1983. By a judgment dated 31-8-1983 the State Administrative Tribunal held as follows: Having heard Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the issue involved should be~ examined afresh by Government who should specify as to which of the four charges are made out, and if so, to what extent, and then pass a reasoned order. We remand this case accordingly. 5. Pursuant to the aforementioned direction of the State Administrave Tribunal, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-8 has been pasted. 6. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. We remand this case accordingly. 5. Pursuant to the aforementioned direction of the State Administrave Tribunal, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-8 has been pasted. 6. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. The teamed Counsel submitted that the petitioner could not have been reverted to the post of Correspondence Clerk on the ground that he did not possess the minimum qualification therefor. 7. Mr S. N Jha, the learned G. P., on the other hand, submitted that as per the Government Circular the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of an Accounts Clerk: is Graduate with mathematics. There cannot be any doubt that a Disciplinary Authority has the power to differ with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, but in it is also well-settled that while doing so, reasons therefor have to be assigned. 8. It is also well-settled that when a disciplinary authority intends to use any material to the prejudice of the Delinquent Officer, such material must be disclosed to him in order to enable him to meet the same. 9. In this case, no charge was framed as against the petitioner that his promotion to the post of Senior Accounts Clerk was itself illegal as he did not possess the minimum qualification. The Disciplinary Authority, even, at no point of time asked for any explanation from him In fact while acting in terms of the judgment passed by the Bihar State Administrative Tribunal, such a question could not have been raised by the State of Bihar at all. 10. Further admittedly by reason of the impugned order a, change of the cadre has also taken place. Such an order, therefore, could not have been passed by the State of Bihar. 11. In this view of the matter, the second paragraph of the impugned order dated 10th December, 1991 cannot be sustained. 12. The respondents have also not assigned any reason as to why it differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the recommendations of the Superintending Engineer. The impugned order, therefore, must be held to have been passed without application of mind. 13. This application is, therefore, allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbefore. 12. The respondents have also not assigned any reason as to why it differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the recommendations of the Superintending Engineer. The impugned order, therefore, must be held to have been passed without application of mind. 13. This application is, therefore, allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbefore. It would, however, be open to the State to withdraw the entire order as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application aad pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 14. This application is, therefore, allowed to the extent mentioned herein before with costs. Advocates fee quantified at Rs. 1, 000. R.N.Prasad, J. 15 I agree.