ORDER 1. Leave granted. The State of Punjab is in appeal against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 2. The respondent delinquent, for his unauthorised absence from duty, was charge-sheeted in regular departmental proceedings. An inquiry officer was appointed and the inquiry officer, on the basis of the material produced before him, came to the conclusion that the delinquent remained absent unauthorisedly, but, having regard to the factum of unauthorised absence, the inquiry officer suggested the punishment that the period of absence from duty should be treated as leave without pay and that his increment for that period should be stopped for two years. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer with regard to the delinquency i.e. his unauthorised absence from duty, but, so far as punishment is concerned, the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service. The said order of the disciplinary authority had been assailed by approaching the High Court in a writ petition. 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the same, but, on an appeal being carried the Division Bench being of the opinion that there has been an infraction of Rule 9(4) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, interfered with the order of punishment. Rule 9(4) deals with a matter where the disciplinary authority does not agree with the findings of the inquiring authority on an article of charge. 4. It is crystal clear that when the disciplinary authority does not agree with the findings of the inquiring authority on an article of charge, which is open for him, it is obligatory for him to record reasons as to why he does not a agree with the charge, but, in the case in hand there is no question of disagreement of the disciplinary authority on a finding of charge by the inquiring authority. It is only on the quantum of punishment which the disciplinary authority does not agree and passes an order of dismissal. The inquiring authority, after coming to his conclusion on the delinquency, is no , doubt required to suggest the punishment inflicted upon him but the power as to the punishment lies with the disciplinary authority. 5. It is only on the quantum of punishment which the disciplinary authority does not agree and passes an order of dismissal. The inquiring authority, after coming to his conclusion on the delinquency, is no , doubt required to suggest the punishment inflicted upon him but the power as to the punishment lies with the disciplinary authority. 5. Since in the case in hand there is no disagreement between the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority so far as the findings of charges are concerned, the High Court has committed an error in relying upon Rule 9(4) and interfering with the finding so arrived at. 6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the Division Bench is set aside and the writ petition before the High Court stands dismissed. The appeal is disposed of with the above said observations.