JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The Petitioner was engaged as a 'Barakandaj' in the establishment of Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri. While discharging his duties, certain charges were levelled & on being satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner. In the Departmental Proceeding, the Enquiry Officer after following the principles of natural justice & equity held that the charges levelled against the Petitioner have been proved.' Consequently, the Enquiry Officer suggested punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect & also issuance of warning. The Disciplinary Authority, however, after going through the enquiry report & considering the punishment suggested, did not agree with the same. According to the disciplinary authority, latches are very much apparent as far as the Petitioner is concerned, inasmuch was he has left one of the entrances (Paschima Dwara) of the temple unguarded. He had dereliated his duties & proved himself unworthy for serving as Barakandaj. In the past also his conduct was very discouraging & he had not improved his behaviour. On the basis of such observations, it was held that the Petitioner should be removed from service. Consequently, by Order Dated 3.6.1994, the Petitioner was removed from service. Being aggrieved, it appears, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chairman & in the meanwhile the appeal has also been dismissed. However, the order of dismissal has not been annexed to this writ application. 2. In course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the disciplinary authority did not properly appreciate the findings arrived at by the inquiry Officer & the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the charges levelled. 3. These submissions, however, are strongly repudiated by Mr. Rath, Learned Counsel appearing for the Temple Administration. According to Mr. Rath, the Petitioner proved himself to be unworthy & earlier also number of disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him & he was left out with warning and/or imposition of minor punishment. Consequently, the disciplinary authority thought it just & proper to impose the punishment of removal from service as the Petitioner has not improved by efflux of time. 4. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. We have also perused the charge-sheet & other materials. This is a case where the disciplinary authority has disagreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer. 5. In the case of Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. 4. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties. We have also perused the charge-sheet & other materials. This is a case where the disciplinary authority has disagreed with the finding of the Inquiry Officer. 5. In the case of Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another the Supreme Court held that the disciplinary authority while disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer holding the delinquent guilty of charges has to issue prior notice to the delinquent officer. 6. In the case of Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Sh. Kunj Behari Misra, it has also been observed by the Supreme Court that whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry authority on any article of charge then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement & give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. 7. In the instant case, we have scrutinized the reasons of the disciplinary authority & found that it had taken the final decision without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner at the stage at which it proposed to differ with the findings of the Inquiry Officer as well as the proposed punishment. Such conclusions having been arrived at behind the back of the Petitioner, the same are sufficient to vitiate the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. Consequently, we set aside the Order Dated 3.6.1994 (Annexure-3) as well as Annexure-4 & remit the matter to the Administrator of Sri Jagannath Temple with a direction to issue notice to the Petitioner & thereafter proceed strictly in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not delved into the merits of the case & it would be open to the disciplinary authority to pass such orders as deemed just & proper. 8. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. B.N. Mahapatra, J. I agree.