Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order as contained in annexure- 6 issued vide memo no. 1752 dated 26th October, 1999, whereby and whereunder his increment for six months was withheld which was equivalent to one black mark and the order as contained in annexure-8, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed. 3. It appears that for the absence of the petitioner from duty he was put under suspension and a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. The matter was enquired into and the enquiry officer vide his report as contained in annexure-4, recommended no action against the petitioner as the charges were not fully substantiated. The disciplinary authority appears to have differed with the recommendation of the enquiry officer and vide order as contained in annexure-6, a punishment order was passed. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had absented from duty due to unavoidable circumstances and he was prevented by sufficient cause as he was hospitalised. It is further contended by learned counsel that in the departmental proceeding sufficient opportunities were not given to the petitioner nor copy of the enquiry report was served upon him before passing of the orders impugned. It is also contended by learned counsel that for difference of opinion the disciplinary authority was required to give an opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case, but that also was not done in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. Though counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents, no plausible explanation has been given tor non- service of the enquiry report and about giving an opportunity to represent or the question of difference of opinion. 6. In sum and substance, this is an admitted position that neither a copy of the enquiry report nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner to represent his case on the question of difference of opinion. 7. It is pertinent from annexure-4 vis-a-vis annexure-6 that the disciplinary authority completely differed with the opinion of the enquiry officer and passed the order of punishment contrary to the evidence on record and that also without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. 7. It is pertinent from annexure-4 vis-a-vis annexure-6 that the disciplinary authority completely differed with the opinion of the enquiry officer and passed the order of punishment contrary to the evidence on record and that also without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. Non-service of the copy of the enquiry report upon the petitioner prejudices his case and at the same time violates the principles of natural justice. 9. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Managing Director, ECIL V/s. B. Karunakar, reported in AIR 1994 S.C. 1074 . At the same time, the disciplinary authority while differing with the enquiry officer was required to give an opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case in the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank V/s. Kunj Behari Misra, reported in 1998(7) Supreme Court Cases page 84. 10. Admittedly, in this case, neither a copy of the enquiry report was given to the petitioner nor an opportunity of hearing was given to represent his case on the question of difference of opinion. 11. It appears that the disciplinary authority adopted the procedures of law quite unknown to law. Orders impugned on these scores are not sustainable in law. 12. In the result, this writ application is allowed. Orders impugned as contained in annexures-6 and 8 are set aside. 13. The respondents, if so advised, may proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law. 14. No costs.