JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order of compulsory retirement of the Petitioner dated 18.05.1999 (Annexure-3) & the Appellate Order Dated 10.11.2000 (Annexure 4) confirming it, which were passed by the Disciplinary Authority & the Appellate Authority respectively, & direct the Opposite Parties to grant him all service benefits. 2. The facts & circumstances giving rise to the present Writ Petition are that the Petitioner while working as In-charge Branch Manager in Tribal Development Co-operative Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (in short 'the Corporation'), Parlakhemundi, two Departmental Proceedings, one being 59 dated 02.01.1990 & other being 1815 dated 22.b3.1995 were initiated against him. The charge in the first D.P. was that the Petitioner along with Ex-Shop Assistant, Shri R.C. Satapathy illegally transported 'Mahua' seeds to outside the State for pecuniary gain, which was detrimental to the interest of the Corporation. The allegation in the second D.P was that the Petitioner instructed one B.B. Kar, Shop Supervisor to purchase "Niger seeds" at higher rate, from private traders, without any permission from higher authorities & thereby disobeyed the order of the higher authorities. The Petitioner denied the charges in his explanation. Not being satisfied by the explanation, the Administrative Officer of the TRIDCO, Bhubaneswar & Divisional Manager of the Corporation were appointed as the, Enquiry Officer in respect of the first & second departmental proceedings respectively to enquire about the charges. The Petitioner was exonerated from the charges as per enquiry reports dated 24.12.1996 (Annexure-1) & dated 10.09.1996 (Annexure-2) submitted by both the Enquiry Officers. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officers & inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement vide Order Dated 18.05.1999 (Annexure-3). Being dissatisfied with the order of the Disciplinary Authority passed under Annexure-3, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority who vide his Order Dated 10.11.2000 (Annexure-4) declined to interfere with the orders of the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3. Mr. Dora, Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner vehemently argued that law is well settled that, in case the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the report of the Enquiry Officer on a particular finding of fact, he has to record reasons & then serve a show cause notice upon the delinquent officer, & after considering his show cause, the Disciplinary Authority shall have to pass the final order. This vital aspect has been lost sight of the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority are liable to be set aside & the Petitioner is entitled to all financial benefits as, in the meantime, he attained the age of superannuation in the year 2009. In support of his contention, Mr. Dora relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, & Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Sh. Kunj Behari Misra, . 4. Per contra, Ms. S.L. Pattnaik, Learned Counsel for the O.P.-Corporation supported the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Vishnu Panvalkar Vs. Bank of India, she contented that since Management of the Corporation lost confidence due to loss caused by the Petitioner to the Corporation, it decided that continuance of the Petitioner in the Corporation would be detrimental to the interest of the Corporation. She further argued that the Petitioner has failed to satisfy t-his Court how non-service of a show cause notice before passing the order of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the exoneration report of the Enquiry Officers caused prejudice to the Petitioner. Ms. Patnaik relying on the decision of the Apex Court in The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Through Its Registrar Vs. Shashikant S.Patil and Another submitted that the enquiry report is an opinion, which is not binding on the disciplinary authority. Further, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in State Bank of Patiala and others Vs. S.K. Sharma, argued that no prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner as natural justice has been complied with. Hence, this Court may not interfere with the impugned orders & the Writ Petition should be dismissed. 5. On the rival contentions raised at the Bar, the question that needs determination by this Court is as to whether it is incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to afford opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer before passing the order of punishment by disagreeing with the exoneration reports of the Enquiry Officers? 6. It is not in dispute that two different Enquiry Officers had exonerated the Petitioner from the charges leveled against him in two separate disciplinary proceedings. 6. It is not in dispute that two different Enquiry Officers had exonerated the Petitioner from the charges leveled against him in two separate disciplinary proceedings. But, the Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officers inflicted the punishment of compulsory retirement with effect from 18.05.1999 without giving any show cause notice to the Petitioner. This course of action of the Disciplinary Authority, no doubt, has caused prejudice to the Petitioner, who was exonerated from the charges in the disciplinary proceeding by Enquiry Officers. In this context, it will be useful to refer to some of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the case of Yoginath D. Bagde (supra), the Apex Court held as follows: In view of the above, a delinquent employee has the right of hearing not only during the enquiry proceedings conducted by the enquiry Officer into the charges leveled against him but also at the stage at which those findings are considered by the Disciplinary Authority & the latter, namely, the disciplinary Authority forms a tentative opinion that it does not agree with the findings recorded by the enquiry Officer. If the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are in favour of the delinquent & it has been held that the charges are not proved, it is all the more necessary to give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee before reversing those findings. The formation of opinion should be tentative & not final. It is at this stage that the delinquent employee should be given an opportunity of hearing after he is informed of the reasons on the basis of which the Disciplinary Authority has proposed to disagree with the findings of the enquiry Officer. This is in consonance with the requirement of Article 311(2) of the Constitution as it provides that a person shall not be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him & given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in-respect of those charges. So long as a final decision is not taker/in the matter, the enquiry shall be deemed to be pending. Mere submission of findings to the disciplinary Authority does not bring about the closure of the enquiry proceedings. So long as a final decision is not taker/in the matter, the enquiry shall be deemed to be pending. Mere submission of findings to the disciplinary Authority does not bring about the closure of the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry proceedings would come to an end only when the findings have been considered by the Disciplinary Authority & the charges are either held to be not proved or found to be proved & in that event punishment is inflicted upon the delinquent. That being so, the "right to be heard" would be available to the delinquent up to the final stage. This right being a constitutional right of the employee cannot be taken away in any legislative enactment or Service Rule including Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution. The Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank (supra) relying upon its earlier decisions in State of Assam and Another Vs. Bimal Kumar Pandit, ; Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. L.K. Ratna and Others, ; Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc. Ram Kishan Vs. Union of India and others, held as follows: ...It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be over-turned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the inquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the inquiring officer holds the charges to be proved then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the inquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority. 7. Thus, in a Departmental Proceeding the Disciplinary Authority has a final say on the issues of the findings of fact. He has a right to disagree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. In departmental proceedings what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority. 7. Thus, in a Departmental Proceeding the Disciplinary Authority has a final say on the issues of the findings of fact. He has a right to disagree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. In a case where the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the Enquiry Officer on a particular finding of fact, he has to record the reasons for such finding & then serve a show cause notice upon the delinquent officer before taking any action against him. If the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the Enquiry Officer & passes order detrimental to the interest of the delinquent officer without affording any opportunity of being heard to the delinquent that would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice & in that case the order imposing punishment would be vitiated. 8. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that it is incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer if the Disciplinary Authority intends to differ with the orders passed by the Enquiry Officers, who exonerated the delinquent officer from the charges. It is so necessary to comply with the requirement of principles of natural justice as well as Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which provides that a person shall not be dismissed from service or removed or reduced in rank without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the charges leveled against him. 9. It is the settled law that once the Court sets aside the order of punishment on the ground that the enquiry in the disciplinary proceeding has not been properly conducted, the Court has to remit the case to the Disciplinary Authority to take up the enquiry from the point it stood vitiated & conclude the same afresh. See Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc., ; Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya case, (2002) 10 SCC 293 ; U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and Another, ; & Union of India (UOI) Vs. Y.S. Sadhu, Ex-Inspector, . It is difficult to accept the submission of Mr. See Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc., ; Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya case, (2002) 10 SCC 293 ; U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and Another, ; & Union of India (UOI) Vs. Y.S. Sadhu, Ex-Inspector, . It is difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Dora that since the disciplinary authority has not granted any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner while disagreeing with the enquiry officer, the order of the disciplinary authority is not sustainable, & therefore this Court should grant all financial benefits to the Petitioner without remitting the matter to Disciplinary Authority for giving an opportunity of hearing td the delinquent officer in view of decisions of the Apex Court in Yoginath D. Bagde (supra) & Punjab National Bank (supra). In Yoginath D. Bagde (supra) the Apex Court scrutinized the order of dismissal dated 8.11.1993 passed by the Disciplinary Committee & issued direction to reinstate the Appellant in service with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay with the following observation: In the instant case, we have scrutinized the reasons of the Disciplinary Committee & have found that it had taken its final decision without giving an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant at the stage at which it proposed to differ with the findings of the enquiry Officer. We have also found that the complaint's story with regard to the place at which the demand was allegedly made by the Appellant was inconsistent. We have also noticed that the trap laid by the A.C.B., Nagpur against the Appellant had failed & was held by the Enquiry Officer to be a farce & not having been laid with the permission of the Chief Justice. We have also noticed that there was absolute non-consideration of the statements of defence witnesses, namely, Dr. Naranje & Mr. Bapat, advocate, by the Disciplinary Committee. This factor in itself was sufficient to vitiate the findings recorded by that Committee contrary to the findings of the Enquiry Officer. In Punjab National Bank (supra), the Apex Court set aside the orders imposing penalty & directed the Appellants to release the retirement benefits to the Respondent with the following observation.: Both the Respondents superannuated on 31st December, 1983. During the pendency of these appeals Misra died on 6th January, 1995 & his legal representatives were brought on record. More than 14 years have elapsed since the delinquent officers had superannuated. During the pendency of these appeals Misra died on 6th January, 1995 & his legal representatives were brought on record. More than 14 years have elapsed since the delinquent officers had superannuated. It will, therefore, not be in the interest of justice that at this stage the cases should be remanded to the disciplinary authority for the start of another innings. We, therefore, do not issue any such directions & while dismissing these appeals we affirm the decisions of the High Court which had set aside the orders imposing penalty & had directed the Appellants to release the retirement benefits to the Respondents.... From the above observation, what appears to have weighed the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the long passage of 14 years time from the date of superannuation. The circumstances under which the Apex Court granted service benefits in the above two cases do not exist in the case at hand. Hence, the ratio decided in the aforesaid cases has no application to the present case. There is no quarrel over the legal propositions of law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions relied upon by Ms. Patnaik, but those are of no help to the Opposite Parties in view of the discussions made hereinabove. 10. In the above fact-situation, we hereby quash the impugned orders passed under Annexures-3 & 4. 11. In the circumstances, it would be proper to remit the case to the Disciplinary Authority to take up enquiry from the point it stood vitiated & to conclude the same afresh. While doing so, the Disciplinary Authority shall supply the reasons of disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer to the delinquent & shall give the delinquent an opportunity to persuade the Disciplinary Authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter the disciplinary authority shall take a final decision on the charges framed against the delinquent. Since in the meantime the delinquent officer has crossed the age of superannuation, the entire exercise should be completed as early as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. With the above observations the Writ Petition is disposed of. A.S. Naidu, J. I agree.