JUDGEMENT A.K.Tripathi, J. 1. Petitioner wants quashing of the order dated 26.4.1995 contained in Annexure-4 by virtue of which the Commandant, Bihar Military Police No.8 has passed the order of discharge from service against the petitioner. The said order came to be affirmed in appeal by D.I.G. in his order dated 30.12.1995 which is Annexure-5 and rejection of the memorial by Inspector General of Police vide order dated 1.4.1997 contained in Annexure-13. 2. Petitioner raises a legal objection and question with regard to the punishment order and consequential orders thereto. One of the primary submission is that the enquiry officer did not find the petitioner guilty of one of the charges but despite the said finding the disciplinary authority by recording the order of disagreement imposed punishment of discharge and that too without the reasons or material for the same. He further issued a composite notice of disagreement and second show cause illegally. 3. Two charges were brought against the petitioner. One that he absented from the camp from 14.00 hours on 7.9.1992 and reported back to the camp on 8.9.1992 at 13.30 hours. This absence was without proper authorization and permission. The other charge was that the petitioner tried to establish an illicit relation with one Pushpa Devi and such act of the petitioner had created law and order issue with the villagers. 4. There is no dispute that the first charge was established and was accepted by the petitioner that he did leave the camp and reported next day because he wanted to go to market but with regard to second charge there was no evidence or finding that the petitioner was trying to establish illicit relationship. 5. Despite well settled principle by the Honble Apex Court in the matter of disagreement, the disciplinary authority without giving the reason or the evidence for such a disagreement issued a second show cause on the quantum of punishment against the petitioner. Reading of annexure-4 would show that the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard seems to be true. In fact, to make the matter worse the disciplinary authority seems to have used personal knowledge or some information that Pushpa Devi had reported to the Guard alongwith her mother and she had expressed her desire to live with the petitioner and that was taken as evidence against the petitioner for disagreement on the second charge. 6. In fact, to make the matter worse the disciplinary authority seems to have used personal knowledge or some information that Pushpa Devi had reported to the Guard alongwith her mother and she had expressed her desire to live with the petitioner and that was taken as evidence against the petitioner for disagreement on the second charge. 6. The law on this issue is well settled by the Honble Apex Court in the cases of Punjab National Bank & Others vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra reported in (1998)7 SCC 84 and Yoginath Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in (1999)7 SCC 739 . 7. If the ratio laid down by Honble Apex Court in both the matters is applied to the present set of facts then obviously the disciplinary authority has not followed the requirement of law with regard to finding of disagreement as well as with regard to issuance of composite order with the second show cause. 8. If the action of the disciplinary authority is in the teeth of the above two decisions then the order of punishment and subsequent decisions passed in appeal and memorial also cannot be sustained. The impugned orders contained in Annexures-4, 5 and 13 therefore are quashed. 9. This writ application is allowed.