JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated October 28, 1995 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby penalty in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the petitioner under Section 36(2) of the RSRTC Standing Orders. 2. The petitioner averred in the writ petition that he was exonerated by the enquiry officer vide order dated July 27, 1995. In the report, the enquiry officer observed that the petitioner cannot be held liable for the accident and deserves to be exonerated from all the charges. Copy of the enquiry report has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure 3. Thereafter the respondent No. 2 who is the disciplinary authority passed an order on October 28, 1995 Annexure 5 wherein it was held that the petitioner is liable for the damages in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of the accident. 3. The respondents submitted reply to the writ petition and stated that the finding of the enquiry officer was not proper and the petitioner was held to be contributory negligent by the disciplinary authority. It was not necessary for the disciplinary authority to agree with the enquiry officer's report Annexure-3. Thus the impugned order was legally passed and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. A look at the impugned order demonstrates that the report of the enquiry officer was not considered by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority arrived at its own finding without giving any reason of disagreement to the report of the enquiry officer. The report of the enquiry officer was only referred in the impugned order but it was not held as to why the report of the enquiry officer was unjustified. 5. In State of Rajasthan v. M.C. Saxena, (1998) 3 SCC 385 , it was held that if the disciplinary authority does not agree with the report of the enquiry officer he has to assign reasons for disagreeing with the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority can disagree with the findings arrived at by the enquiring officer and act upon its own conclusion. But only requirement is that the disciplinary authority must record reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer. 6. The disciplinary authority can disagree with the findings arrived at by the enquiring officer and act upon its own conclusion. But only requirement is that the disciplinary authority must record reasons for his disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer. 6. As the respondent No. 2, who is the disciplinary authority did not give reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, this court can certainly interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authority. In view of this, the order dated October 28, 1995 (Annexure-5) of the respondent No. 2 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and deserves to be quashed. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated October 28, 1995 Annexure-5 stands set-aside and the case is remanded back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order in view of the ratio of State of Rajasthan v. M.C. Saxena (Supra), after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Costs easy.Writ Petition Allowed. *******