ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 1. This writ application is directed against the orders as contained in Annexures 5 and 6 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been punished in a departmental proceeding and his appeal filed against the order of punishment has been dismissed. 2. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that though the enquiry officer had not found the charges proved against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority on difference found the petitioner guilty for the charges without giving him any opportunity of hearing. 3. From Annexure-5 of the writ application, it appears that the enquiry officer submitted a report finding the petitioner not guilty for the charges. However, the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the enquiry report punished the petitioner. 4. In a case where the disciplinary authority differs with the enquiry report, he is required to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for his difference. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Punjab National Bank & ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Misra {(1998)7 Supreme Court Cases 84}. 5. Learned counsel for the State confronted with this aspect of the matter very fairly submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submitted that neither any reason has been given in the order impugned as contained in Annexure-1 for difference nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. 7. For the reasons aforementioned, the orders impugned as contained in Annexures 5 and 6 are not sustainable in law. 8. In the result, this application is allowed. The orders as contained in Annexures 5 and 6 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law.