JUDGMENT The petitioner was working on the post of Executive Engineer in the Public Health Engineering Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. He was issued a charge-sheet dated 14-5-2002 (Annexure P-1) levelling as many as six charges against him. After considering his reply dated 30-8-2002 (Annexure P-2) to the charge-sheet a departmental enquiry was conducted against him. On completion of the departmental enquiry the enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 22-7-2002 in which out of 6 charges, charge Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were found to be partly proved, Charge No. 5 was found to be fully proved and Charge No. 6 was found to be not proved. The Disciplinary Authority while considering the enquiry report disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 and held the said charges also to be fully proved against the petitioner and by the impugned penalty order dt. 16-8-2007 (Annexure P/19) inflicted upon the petitioner a penalty of compulsory retirement. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dt. 16-8-2007 (Annexure P/19) the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is that the enquiry- officer has held Charge Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to be partly proved and the Charge No. 6 to be not proved, and when the Disciplinary Authority was not in agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of the said charges, he was required to have communicated the petitioner the tentative reasons for disagreeing with the findings of Enquiry Officer in regard to said charges. He submits that instead of communicating the tentative reasons for disagreement, and affording opportunity of hearing before taking any decision the Disciplinary Authority recorded the final findings holding that the said charges to be fully proved against the petitioner and passed the impugned order. He submits that instead of communicating the tentative reasons for disagreement, and affording opportunity of hearing before taking any decision the Disciplinary Authority recorded the final findings holding that the said charges to be fully proved against the petitioner and passed the impugned order. According to him the action and the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is contrary to the law down by the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others vs. Kunj Behari Misra, AIR 1998 SC 2713 , Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra and another, AIR 1999 SC 3734 and judgment of this Court passed in the case of Smt. Nilu wd/o Late Manohar Sukhija and others vs. M. P. State Electricity Board and others, (2009) 2 MPLJ 632 . 3. On the other hand, Shri S. S. Garg, learned Government Advocate argued that the Disciplinary Authority having noticed that the Enquiry Officer did not properly appreciate the evidence recorded in the Departmental Enquiry has rightly held all the charges to be proved against the petitioner. In the circumstances, according to him, no interference is called for in this petition. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that after receipt of enquiry report recording the finding that Charge Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to be partly proved. Charge No. 5 to be fully proved and Charge No. 6 to be not proved against the petitioner the Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the enquiry report held the petitioner guilty of all the six charges and inflicted upon him penalty of compulsory retirement. The disciplinary authority in my considered view without communicating the petitioner the tentative reasons disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in regard to those charges and without affording opportunity of hearing to him could not have passed the impugned order. 5. In the case of Punjab National Bank and others vs. Kunj Bihari Misra (supra) it has been held by the Supreme Court that the employee is required to be given an opportunity of hearing by issuing a show cause notice in case the Disciplinary Authority is not in agreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer holding him not guilty of the charges so as to give an opportunity to the employee to convince the Disciplinary authority that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his favour were just and proper. In the case of Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra and another (supra) the Supreme Court has held that the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing as laid down in Punjab National Bank and others (supra) is in consonance with Article 311(2) and being a Constitutional right to be heard, has to be read into a rule which does not make specific provision to this effect. The Disciplinary Authority before forming its final opinion, has to convey to charged employee its tentative reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 6. In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, which was reiterated in the case of Smt. Nilu wd/o late Manohar Sukhija vs. State of M.P.E.B. (supra) in my considered view the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dt. 16-8-2007 (Annexure P/19) is quashed. However, the Disciplinary Authority shall be at liberty, if advised, to issue show cause notice to the petitioner with tentative reasons of disagreement and to proceed further after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition stands allowed. No orders as to the costs. Petition allowed.