Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order of punishment, issued vide memo no. 1004 dated 19.11.1999, as contained in annexure 13. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been punished on non est grounds. It is further submitted that in course of inquiry the inquiry officer did not find the charges proved against the petitioner, and, accordingly, he submitted his report to the disciplinary authority fully exonerating him from the charges. However, the disciplinary authority appears to have differed with the inquiry report and passed the order of punishment without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case on the point of difference. In paragraph nos. 25 and 26 of the writ application, it is categorically stated that no opportunity, whatsoever, was given to the petitioner on the question of difference from the inquiry report. 4. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter, which was referred to by the Department to the Vigilance was already filed, which would be apparent from annexure 15. 5. Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State, nowhere it is mentioned as to whether any opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing of the order impugned on the question of difference of opinion. 6. It is admitted fact that the inquiry officer had finally found the charges not proved against the petitioner and inquiry report, accordingly, was submitted. 7. The disciplinary authority may differ with the inquiry report, but for the difference as such an opportunity is required to be given to the delinquent to represent this case. In this case, it appears that no opportunity, whatsoever, was given to the petitioner to represent his case on the point of difference of opinion and, thus, the order impugned, as contained in annexure 13, must be held to be wholly without jurisdiction in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. V/s. Kunj Behari Misra [1998(7) Supreme Court Cases, 84]. 8. I am informed that the petitioner superannuated with effect from 31st January, 2001 and no matter regarding his date of birth is pending consideration before the Vigilance Department. 9. V/s. Kunj Behari Misra [1998(7) Supreme Court Cases, 84]. 8. I am informed that the petitioner superannuated with effect from 31st January, 2001 and no matter regarding his date of birth is pending consideration before the Vigilance Department. 9. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and the order impugned, as contained in annexure 13, is set aside. 10. No order as to costs.