Judgment 1. The present letters patent appeal has been filed against the order of the learned writ court dated 18.3.2002 passed in CWJC No. 7231 of 2000 by which the order of the disciplinary authority has been upheld and the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner-appellant that the disciplinary authority in view of his earlier order not being upheld by this Court in CWJC No. 8352 of 1996 by order dated 7.12.1993 (sic) though differing with the findings given by the inquiry officer had not held any of the charges as being proved and as such the punishment was based only on difference of opinion, was repelled. 2. The contention of the petitioner-appellant is that the departmental proceeding was started against him for defalcation of 200 bags of urea and for his unauthorised absentation from his post when an inquiry was on. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant that the petitioner-appellant had faced the inquiry and after examining witnesses and adducing evidences the charges were found to be not proved. 3. However, the disciplinary authority differed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer awarded punishment on the petitioner-appellant. The said punishment was found to be bad by this Court in CWJC No. 8352 of 1996 as the disciplinary authority while differing with the report of the Inquiry Officer did not state that any of the charges stood proved. By the aforesaid order liberty was granted to the respondents to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. But, according to the learned counsel, if at all the authorities were to proceed against him departmentally then they should have initiated a fresh inquiry or should have started the inquiry de novo. It has also been contended that subsequently a criminal case was also instituted in which final form has been submitted and no chargesheet has been submitted against the petitioner-appellant. 4. As it is clear from the order of the writ court itself that allegation of defalcation of 200 bags of urea which is said to be paper transaction only is on the petitioner- appellant, who was the depot incharge, as such the custodian of the defalcated urea. On a complaint to the authorities when an investigation was set up the petitioner-appellant is said to have absented himself from the duty after applying for leave which was being extended from time to time hampering the investigation. 5. On a complaint to the authorities when an investigation was set up the petitioner-appellant is said to have absented himself from the duty after applying for leave which was being extended from time to time hampering the investigation. 5. It is well settled that a disciplinary authority is not bound to accept the report of the Inquiry Officer. In the present case, the disciplinary authority has differed with the inquiry report, has given his own reasonings for coming to the findings arrived at by him, given show cause notice to the petitioner-appellant, heard him and after second show cause notice ordered for compulsory retirement. 6. The earlier order of this Court dated 20.1.1998 does not in any way work as an estoppel on him as in the aforesaid order opportunity had been granted to the disciplinary authority to proceed against the petitioner-appellant, if he so desired, and tne order of the disciplinary authority was found to be bad only as to the wordings of his order, as at no place in his order he had stated that any of the charges as being proved. 7. The present order of the disciplinary authority has not been challenged on that ground. As such this Court does not find any error in the order of the writ court requiring interference with the same. 8. Dismissed.