JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, an Inspector (Audit), Department of Cooperative Society, was served with a memorandum under rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, for allegations of misconduct in the terms that while working as Manager, Pokaran Kray Vikray Sahkari Samiti, Pokaran he misappropriated and misused funds of the Society, he misappropriated funds of the society by showing disbursement of funds to the employees irregularly, by showing less stock he misappropriated the funds and for keeping records of the society incomplete. 2. By submitting an explanation, the petitioner denied the allegations and asserted that during his tenure as Manager of the society concerned, he was making entries in temporary ledger whereas Cashier Shri Uda Ram was making all entries in permanent ledger. As per explanation submitted by the petitioner, though he pointed out to competent authorities certain irregularities committed by Shri Uda Ram by not maintaining permanent ledger regularly but no action against him was taken. 3. Being dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, a regular inquiry was necessitated and for the purpose, the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jodhpur was appointed as Inquiry Officer. After considering all the evidence available on record, he submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority holding the delinquent officer guilty for supervisory negligence but exonerating him from all the allegations referred in the charge sheet. 4. The Disciplinary Authority, under a letter dated 22nd December, 2004 (Annx.4) communicated to petitioner, regarding his disagreement with the findings given by the Inquiry Officer. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed statement relating to whatever finding given by the Inquiry Officer and note of disagreement made by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority then passed an order dated 28th April, 1995 holding the petitioner guilty for all the allegations levelled under the memorandum dated 24th November, 1989, penalised him by deduction of two annual grade increments already granted. 5. An appeal preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to order passed by the Disciplinary Authority also came to be rejected on 20th December, 1995, hence, this petition for writ is preferred. 6. 5. An appeal preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to order passed by the Disciplinary Authority also came to be rejected on 20th December, 1995, hence, this petition for writ is preferred. 6. Contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from all the allegations for which he was charge-sheeted but the Disciplinary Authority, without assigning any reason for dis-agreement with the findings given by the Inquiry Officer, recorded his own findings holding the petitioner guilty for alleged misconduct. It is also asserted that under the memorandum of allegations petitioner was not at all charge-sheeted for any supervisory negligence; therefore, he could not have been punished for such an allegation. 7. The respondents in reply to the petition, in general defended the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and also procedure adopted during the course of inquiry. 8. In rejoinder, while reiterating whatever stated in the writ petition, the petitioner also emphasised that separate proceedings as per provisions of sec.74 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 for determination of surcharge were also conducted against him but he was not held liable for any surcharge though an order for recovery of the amount relating to loss caused to the cooperative society concerned was made against Shri Uda Ram and one another person Shri Sukhdeo Joshi. 9. I have examined entire record available and heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. The Disciplinary Authority under letter dated 22nd December, 1994 shown his disagreement with the findings given by the Inquiry Officer, however, he has not given any specific and definite reason for such disagreement. Disciplinary Authority while making disagreement with the findings given by the Inquiry Officer has certainly recorded his own findings but no adequate reasons for that are given. Whatever reason given by the Disciplinary Authority for disagreement is on basis of drawing some inference and presumption and that too is not substantiated with the evidence available on record. 11. In the event of disagreement with the findings given by the Inquiry Officer the Disciplinary Authority is required to give specific reasons for such disagreement. Mere a difference of opinion doesn't fulfill the requirement of extending reasons for disagreement. The reasons for disagreement discloses mind of the Disciplinary Authority and that shows as to how he has considered and appreciated the material available. Mere a difference of opinion doesn't fulfill the requirement of extending reasons for disagreement. The reasons for disagreement discloses mind of the Disciplinary Authority and that shows as to how he has considered and appreciated the material available. This also unfolds the errors, if any, committed by the Enquiry Officer in considering and appreciating the evidence. Only on availability of such reasons, the delinquent employee could defend himself effectively. 12. The Disciplinary Authority not only in the letter dated 22nd December, 1994 but also in the order imposing penalty failed to prescribe reasons for disagreement with the findings given by the Inquiry Officer, as such, the petitioner failed to defend himself adequately. In view of that, the findings given by the Disciplinary Authority holding petitioner guilty for the allegations are bad and deserves to be quashed. 13. It is pertinent to note here that while holding the petitioner guilty for the charges alleged, the Disciplinary Authority has also penalised the delinquent employee for supervisory negligence. True it is, that petitioner was found negligent in supervision by the Inquiry Officer, but as a matter of fact, there was no allegation in the charge sheet against the petitioner for such negligence while discharging duties as Manager of the cooperative society concerned. Petitioner, therefore, was not at all in position to defend himself during course of inquiry for the charge of supervisory negligence. Further relevant to note here that the petitioner in his explanation itself stated that irregularities committed by Shri Uda Ram and other employees of the cooperative society were pointed out by him and were also communicated to higher officers of the cooperative society but no action was taken. If an opportunity would have been given to the petitioner relating to his supervisory duties, he would have satisfied the Disciplinary Authority regarding all relevant facts and actions taken by him. In absence of allegation regarding negligence in supervisory duties, it was not proper for the Disciplinary Authority to penalise the petitioner for such an allegation. 14. The appellate authority, while examining record of the inquiry and order of punishment, failed to appreciate contention raised by the petitioner regarding reasons supplied for disagreement with the Inquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority and also regarding non-existence of allegation with regard to supervisory negligence in duties. As such, order of the appellate authority is also bad. 15. 14. The appellate authority, while examining record of the inquiry and order of punishment, failed to appreciate contention raised by the petitioner regarding reasons supplied for disagreement with the Inquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority and also regarding non-existence of allegation with regard to supervisory negligence in duties. As such, order of the appellate authority is also bad. 15. In view of whatever stated above, I am inclined to accept this petition for writ. Accordingly, same is allowed. Order dated 28th April, 1995 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur-the Disciplinary Authority, imposing penalty upon petitioner under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 is hereby declared illegal and therefore, same is quashed. Order dated 01st January, 1996 passed by the Appellate Authority affirming order dated 28th April, 1995 is also declared illegal and the same is also quashed. The petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits arising because of quashing of the orders aforesaid.No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******