Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal from service made after departmental proceeding vide order dated January 16, 1988 (Annexure-8), as well as the order dated May 16, 1990 (Annexure -11), by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected . 2. As in this case, a short question of law is involved, so it is not necessary to go into the detailed facts of this case, except the relevant one, as stated hereunder. 3. The petitioner was functioning as Village Level Worker (V.L.W.) under the Respondents-State and was posted in the Kurtha Block of district Jehanabad. He was made an Executive Agent for construction of one Kuccha Bandh, having project No. 20/82 -83. For such execution, he was provided with a cash amounting to Rs. 1,90,000 and 255 quintals of food grains amounting to Rs. 2,34,625. Subsequently, it was alleged that a total work of Rs. 1,59,518.80 Ps. was performed and so the petitioner was asked to refund back the rest of the amount of Rs. 65,106.10 P. The petitioner having not refunded such amount a Police Case No. 170/83 was lodged to that effect and a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner. He was suspended by order dated November 29, 1983 and chargesheet was submitted by memo dated June 6, 1985. The aforesaid charge of defalcation of Rs. 65,106.10P. was levelled against the petitioner by the said charge- sheet. 4. The petitioner submitted his show cause reply denying the charge but requested the Enquiry Officer to stay the departmental enquiry on the ground that a criminal case for the same allegation was pending before a competent Court of law. The Enquiry Officer rejected such prayer and decided to proceed with the enquiry in which the petitioner took part. After the enquiry, the report was submitted on April 26, 1986 (Annexure-6). By the said report, the Enquiry Officer found that the Junior Engineer of District Board had taken some sort of wrong, measurement and the measurement of the Assistant Engineer of the Zila parishad was correct which was also affirmed by the District Engineer of the District Board. Thus, he reported no illegality in the matter but failed to give a specific note to the effect that the petitioner is not guilty. 5. It appears that thereafter one Addl. Thus, he reported no illegality in the matter but failed to give a specific note to the effect that the petitioner is not guilty. 5. It appears that thereafter one Addl. Collector forwarded the aforesaid enquiry, report by office note dated January 11,1988 (Annexure-7) and mentioned that in fact the Enquiry Officer had not given any specific finding with regard to the charge. He pointed out that the petitioner was given opportunity and thereby defalcated a sum of Rs. 65,000. The collector in such office note put his signature agreeing with the aforesaid view and then came out with the impugned order of dismissal dated January 16, 1988. 6. In this case, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents denying the averments made by the petitioner. From the impugned order, it will be evident that the disciplinary authority did not choose to discuss even the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, as contained in Annexure 6. By the impugned order, it has been simply submitted that the petitioner was provided with the advance of Rs. 1,90,000 and food grains amounting to Rs. 2,34,625.00 and on measurement it has been found that work of Rs. 1,59,518.80 P. has been done and thus there is a defalcation of Rs. 65.106.10 p. He has given no reason to differ with the findings given by the Enquiry Officer. 7. In the matter of departmental enquiry, now it is a settled law that the disciplinary authority can hold enquiry himself or can enturst such duty to another person to hold enquiry. In such a case, charge is to be reduced in writing and is to be communicated to the charged employee along with the list of evidence which are to be relied to prove the charges If the charged employee disputes the allegation then he is to be heard in the departmental proceeding by the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer will have to give a finding based on evidences which are being placed by the parties. 8. After such enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has got two options; either to agree with the enquiry report and to pass appropriate order and/or to disagree with such enquiry report. 8. After such enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has got two options; either to agree with the enquiry report and to pass appropriate order and/or to disagree with such enquiry report. If the disciplinary authority disagrees with the Enquiry Officer, in that case, he will have to give reason for the same and communicate such reason to the charged employee with clear stipulation that he is going to differ with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. 9. In the present case, admittedly, the disciplinary authority himself had not conducted enquiry nor submitted any report, rather it was entrusted to another officer though the Enquiry Officer gave no finding against the petitioner, the petitioner has been punished that too without giving a valid reason for difference of opinion by the disciplinary authority with the Enquiry Officer, According to me, it is not permissible under the law. 10. For the reasons stated above I set aside the impugned order of dismissal dated January 16, 1988 (Annexure-8) and the consequential appellate order dated May 16, 1990 (Annexure-11). 11. The writ petition is allowed. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.