Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The only question, which has been urged, is that the disciplinary authority, who had differed with the inquiry report, has not assigned sufficient reasons nor he gave sufficient opportunity to represent his case to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner with reference to Annexure 9, the inquiry report, submitted that some of the charges were not proved, still then the disciplinary authority vide order, as contained in Annexure 1, passed the order of punishment differing with the inquiry report without applying the requirement of giving an opportunity to represent the case to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, at the face of Annexures 1 and 9, practically admits this position and states that the requirement of law was not followed and, however, at the same time, submitted that there are other materials to show that the charges were proved, and, therefore, the petitioner was finally punished by the disciplinary authority. 5. This question is no more res integra and has been set at rest and it has been held by several decisions of the apex court that on question of difference the disciplinary authority is required to give opportunity to the delinquent to represent his case as to why adequate punishment should not be given to him. 6. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad and ors. V/s. B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases 727], where a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held that the principles of Natural Justice would demand that the authority, which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer, must give him a hearing. Again in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde V/s. State of Maharashtra and another [(1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 739] the apex court reiterated the same view. Again a three-Judge bench of the apex court in Punjab National Bank and others V/s. Kunj Behari Misra [(1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 84] took the same view and held that the disciplinary authority on question of difference was required to give an opportunity to the delinquent officer to represent his case. 7. Again a three-Judge bench of the apex court in Punjab National Bank and others V/s. Kunj Behari Misra [(1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 84] took the same view and held that the disciplinary authority on question of difference was required to give an opportunity to the delinquent officer to represent his case. 7. Admittedly, in this case, the principles of Natural Justice, as decided by the apex court, as referred to above, were not followed and, therefore, the order, as contained in Annexure 1, and also the consequential order, as contained in Annexure 17 are not sustainable. 8. In the result, this application is allowed, the impugned order, contained in Annexure 1, and the consequential order, as contained in Annexure 17, are hereby set aside. The authorities, however, will be at liberty to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent petitioner.