JUDGMENT : Respondent No.2 retired from the services of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Before his retirement, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The charges levelled against the said respondent, in the disciplinary proceedings, were inquired by an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer found and reported in his inquiry report that the charges, thus levelled, have not been proved. After the said respondent retired and by which time the State of Uttarakhand was created, an order dated 11th June, 2002 was passed by the disciplinary authority giving reasons why he has not agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and at the same time directed recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,07,338/-. The said order was sought to be implemented by an order dated 1st July, 2002. The order, concluding the disciplinary proceedings, was passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Uttar Pradesh and the order for implementation of the said disciplinary order was passed by the Conservator of Forest, Uttar Pradesh. 2. Respondent No.2 approached the Uttaranchal State Public Services Tribunal challenging the said orders and succeeded. The Tribunal dealt with the objection raised by the State of Uttar Pradesh as regards its jurisdiction. In the present writ petition, however, it has not been contended that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application of respondent No.2. In such view of the matter, we have not been called upon to go into the question, whether Tribunal had or it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application of respondent No.2. 3. It is the contention in the writ petition that the disciplinary authority did record specifically the reasons for the disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. There appears to be also no dispute to that. However, merely recording reasons for disagreement with the findings of Inquiry Officer would not suffice. The law required the disciplinary authority to inform the delinquent the reasons to defer from the findings of the Inquiry Officer in order to give an opportunity to the delinquent to deal with those reasons. Only thereafter the disciplinary authority could pass an order and thereby conclude the disciplinary proceeding. In the instant case, while recording the reasons for disagreement, the disciplinary proceeding was concluded by passing the order without giving any opportunity to the delinquent to know the reasons for disagreement and to enable him to make a representation in that regard. Only thereafter the disciplinary authority could pass an order and thereby conclude the disciplinary proceeding. In the instant case, while recording the reasons for disagreement, the disciplinary proceeding was concluded by passing the order without giving any opportunity to the delinquent to know the reasons for disagreement and to enable him to make a representation in that regard. In those circumstances, there can not be any dispute that the order dated 11th June, 2002 passed by the disciplinary authority is not sustainable in law and, accordingly, the findings of the Tribunal that the said order is invalid and illegal, is not insufferable. Inasmuch, as the order of the disciplinary authority dated 11th June, 2002 is an invalid order, implementation thereof is not permissible and, accordingly, the order dated 1st July, 2002 is also not sustainable and since the Tribunal has interfered with the said order, there is no scope of interference. 4. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.