Order The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the order as contained in Annexure-7 dated 12.9.96 by which the petitioner has been awarded following punishments : (i) the petitioner is entitled to only subsistence allowance during suspension, (ii) 25.4.95 should be treated as E.L. and (iii) withholding of two increments. 2. The petitioner, at the relevant time was working as Assistant teacher in Middle School, War, Madanpur. On 25.4.95 the District Superintendent of Education made surprise inspection and the petitioner was found absent on that date. He was put under. suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his show cause and the Area Education Officer was appointed as Enquiry Officer who after conclusion of the. Enquiry, submitted a report on 5.8.95 holding that the petitioner was on leave on that date and as such he was not absent from duty. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the District Superintendent of Education in accordance with order issued by the Chairman-cum-District Education Establishment Committee-cum-District Magistrate, Aurangabad. A copy of the said order is Annexure-7. 3. The stand in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner was found absent and after enquiry, the impugned order has been passed imposing punishment, as stated above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order on two grounds. Firstly, that the competent authority to pass the order in a departmental proceeding is the District Education Establishment Committee and not the Chairman and as such the impugned order has been passed under the direction of the Chairman only. Secondly, it has been submitted that once the Enquiry Officer found that the charges were not proved, the disciplinary authority, while passing the impugned order, should have assigned some reason though not elaborately for taking a different view in the matter. 5. In my view, both the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are well founded and worth acceptance. The Disciplinary authority is the District Education Establishment Committee and not the Chairman. In the counter affidavit, it has not been stated that the District Education Establishment Committee has passed the order awarding punishment. The order impugned shows that the District Superintendent, of Education issued the order in terms of the direction of the Chairman and as such the order has not been passed by the competent authority in terms of the rule. 6. The order impugned shows that the District Superintendent, of Education issued the order in terms of the direction of the Chairman and as such the order has not been passed by the competent authority in terms of the rule. 6. The law is well settled that when the Enquiry Officer submits a report the delinquent and the disciplinary authority intends to take a different view of the matter, then the final order must indicate though not elaborately, reasons for taking different view. In this connection, reference may be made to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. M. C. Saxena (1998)(2) Judgment Today 103. 7. Thus, on both the grounds the order impugned is vitiated in law. Accordingly, the impugned order Annexure-7 is quashed and the matters remitted to the disciplinary authority to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. 8. In the result, this application is allowed with aforesaid observations/directions.