Judgment 1. Heard the parties and perused the original records relating to enquiry proceeding as produced by learned counsel for the Corporation. 2. The original record shows that petitioner had filed appearances in the enquiry and also a reply to the charges on 13.2.2001 and considering the materials on record the enquiry officer prepared his enquiry report dated 8.3.2001 which is part of Annexure-F to supplementary counter affidavit. As per the said enquiry report petitioner was found liable to pay Rs. 1,47,585.75 paise on account of all the charges and that amount was recommended to be recovered from him. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, as is obvious from part of Annexure-F itself, chose to differ with certain conclusions of the enquiry officer and mainly on the ground of charge no. 4 he enhanced the recoverable amount to Rs. 3,94,868.65 paise. The reason for enhancement as given by the disciplinary authority is that unless and until two other officers are proceeded against and found equally liable for the loss under the 4th charge till then petitioner should be held liable for the entire loss. 3. Admittedly, petitioner retired as a Deputy Manager of Godowns under the respondent Corporation on 28.2.2001 and he has not received his retiral benefits on account of aforesaid proceeding and order. Initially learned counsel for the petitioner sought to challenge the enquiry itself on account of certain irregularities but subsequently it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is agreeable that Rs. 1,47,585.75 paise as recommended by the enquiry officer be deducted from his retiral benefits if the balance of the retiral benefits will be paid to him without any delay. This stand of the petitioner is there in Annexure-4 to the writ petition also. It has next been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority should not have differed from the report of the enquiry officer so as to increase the liability of the petitioner without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and indicating therein the tentative ground for taking a different view. 4. It has next been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority should not have differed from the report of the enquiry officer so as to increase the liability of the petitioner without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and indicating therein the tentative ground for taking a different view. 4. On going through the entire materials this Court finds sufficient force in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority should not have taken a different view than that of the enquiry officer so as to increase the liability of the petitioner without issuing another notice indicating grounds on which he proposed to take a different view. This Court further finds that with regard to charge no. 4 the view of the enquiry officer was a just and proper view and petitioner could not have been held liable for the entire loss only because two other officers have not been proceeded against as yet. 5. Ordinarily, this Court would have remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law but since the petitioner is a retired employee and his retiral benefits are lying withheld it will not be proper to allow the litigation to continue for long, specially when the petitioner has undertaken not to contest the enquiry report and has agreed that Rs. 1,47,585.75 paise be adjusted from his retiral benefits as per the enquiry report. Accordingly, the order of the disciplinary authority for recovery of higher amount than that indicated in the enquiry report is quashed and the respondent Corporation is permitted to deduct Rs. 1,47,585.75 paise from the retiral dues of the petitioner and pay the balance admitted dues expeditiously and in any case within two months from the date of production/communication of a copy of this order before the concerned authority. 6. The writ application is allowed to the aforesaid extent.