Anil Kumar, J.;- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 27.12.2004 (Annexure No.1) passed by opposite party no.1 i.e. Commissioner Food & Civil Supplies, U.P. Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow. Facts in brief of the present case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as supply Inspector in the Food and Civil Supply Department, State of U.P. (hereinafter referred to as Department), posted at Bahraich, he was placed under suspension by order dated 5.5.1999 in respect of the charges of the year 1984 when he was posted as Supply Inspector at Bahraich. Aggrieved by the order of suspension, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.3314 (SS) of 1999 "Hari Shankar Srivastava vs. Commissioner Food & Civil Supplies & 3 Ors" on 28.7.1999, an interim order passed, relevant portion reproduced hereinbelow:- "In the meantime the operation of suspension order dated 5.5.1999, contained in annexure no.1 to the writ petition, shall remain stayed." Thereafter Regional Food Controller, Lucknow Division Lucknow was appointed as enquiry officer to conducted the enquiry proceedings in the matter in question, before whom the petitioner submitted his reply and the enquiry officer after completing the domestic enquiry submitted the enquiry report to the punishing authority/respondent no.1 whereby the petitioner was completely exonerated from all the charges. On 2.7.2003, respondent no.1 issued a show cause notice along with enquiry report to which the petitioner submitted his reply. However, by means of the impugned order dated 27.12.2004, the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of reverting him to the minimum pay scale and adverse entry has been given in his service record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that in the matter in question punishing authority/respondent no.1 has disagreed with the enquriy report/finding given by the enquiry officer then in that circumstances, the show cause notice issued by the punishing authority/respondent no.1 should indicate and state the reason as to how he has differed from the finding recorded by the enquiry officer when the petitioner was completely exonerated from charge. The said procedure has not been followed by the respondent no.1 while issuing the show cause notice prior to passing of the impugned order. The said procedure has not been followed by the respondent no.1 while issuing the show cause notice prior to passing of the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is in contravention to Rule -9 (2) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, thus, arbitrary in nature , void ab initio, liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner has already retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of averments made in the counter affidavit submits that it is not indisputed that the punishing authority/respondent no.1 has not recorded any reason in show cause notice in respect to disagreement with the report submitted by the enquiry officer in favour of the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the Inquiry Officer has given an inquiry report in favour of the petitioner and from the perusal of the show cause notice, it is crystal clear that the O.P. No.1 has not indicated therein the difference of opinion with regard to the finding of the Inquiry Officer only he has asked the petitioner to submit his reply. Keeping in view the said facts, as well as settled proposition of law that in case of difference of opinion, it shall be necessary for the disciplinary authority to serve a notice specifying therein the points of disagreement with the enquiry officer, thereafter, opportunity of hearing should also be provided. Thereafter, again fresh show-cause notice should be issued explaining therein the reasons for disagreement with the enquiry officer after considering the reply submitted by the delinquent employee. Denial of these procedural formalities shall amount to denial of reasonable opportunity of defend the cause, hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Punjab National Bank and others vs. Kunj Behari Mishra ( AIR 1998 SC 2713 ), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that wherever there is difference of opinion between the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority with regard to the charges, it shall be incumbent on the disciplinary authority to serve a notice indicating therein the difference of opinion with regard to the charges. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra and another AIR 1999 SC 3734 held that the disciplinary authority before forming his final opinion, has to convey to charged employee his tentative reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the enquriy officer. Issuance of notice with regard to proposed punishment shall not meed the requirement of the law because final decision to disagree with the enquiry officer may not have been taken before issuing the show cause notice. From a perusal of this judgment also, it appears that only in the event of disagreement with regard to the charges or finding recorded by the enquiry officer, it shall be obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to issue a show cause notice giving therein the grounds on which the disciplinary authority is in disagreement with the enquiry officer. The abovesaid view was further followed and reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Teerath Singh vs. Learned State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and others 2010 (6) ALJ 604. Further in the case of V.K. Pathak Vs. Food Corporation of India and others, 2001(2) UPLBEC 1552, this Court held as under:- "The question may arise as to whether non information to the petitioner that disciplinary authority intended to disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer shall cause serious prejudice. We have no doubt that in a case where the Inquiry Officer completely exonerates an employee, non information shall cause serious prejudice and thus non giving of opportunity has seriously prejudiced the petitioner and the order of punishment and subsequent orders of the appellate authority and reviewing authority cannot be sustained. " In the case of Food Corporation of India and others Vs. H.N. Srivastava, 2011 (2) ALJ 210, a Division Bench of this Court has held that page 40 compilation" "we are of the view that either disciplinary authority will accept the report of the enquiry officer in toto or he will disagree and upon service of second show cause and obtaining reply pass a fresh order with reasons giving opportunity of hearing. In this case, the disciplinary authority has accepted the report in one hand by saying that the enquiry officer has assessed all the documentary evidences and witnesses in a judicious manner particularly in respect of the Article Nos. In this case, the disciplinary authority has accepted the report in one hand by saying that the enquiry officer has assessed all the documentary evidences and witnesses in a judicious manner particularly in respect of the Article Nos. I and IV, but on the other hand, imposed the penalty of Rs.1,99,897/- under Regulation 56 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1971. Both the stands are self contradictory in nature. Therefore, it is a clear case of disagreement with the report of the enquiry officer, without affording any opportunity of hearing. Consequently, imposition of penalty of recovery of Rs.1,99,897/- without any pecuniary loss to the appellant-Corporation is colourable exercise of power. That apart, the respondent- writ petitioner has suffered two punishments; (i) reversion, and (ii) compulsory retirement. Even thereafter imposition of penalty for a sum of Rs. 1,99,897/- without any pecuniary loss, as established before the enquiry officer and as accepted by the disciplinary authority as judicious, is not only harsh but disproportionate in nature. " In the case of Mansa Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others , 2009 (5) ALJ 2, this Court in para 4 held as under:- "In case the disciplinary authority is disagree with the finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer then it shall be incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to serve a notice indicating therein the points of difference between him and the enquiry officer calling response from delinquent employee. In case, it is not done, it shall be violative of principle of natural justice and render the order of punishment illegal. " In the case of Ram Shanker Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (5) ALJ 2011, this Court has held as under:- "In sum and substance, it can be easily said that a delinquent employee has a right of hearing not only during the enquiry proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer into the charges levelled against him but also at the stage at which the said findings are considered by the Disciplinary Authority and latter, the Disciplinary Authority forms a tentative opinion that he does not agree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and it is necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee before reversing the findings in favour of him. The formation of opinion should be tentative and not final. The formation of opinion should be tentative and not final. Accordingly, the questions raised in the present petition are answered." For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 27.12.2004 passed by respondent no. 1 is set aside, matter is remanded back to respondent no. 1 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, so far as the payment of back wages and other consequential/post retiral dues to the petitioner is concerned, the same shall be subject to the final decision taken by the punishing authority. With the above observation, writ petition is allowed.