JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Prafull Yadav, learned Standing Counsel, for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 09.11.2015, passed by the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in Reference Petition No. 573 of 2010 (Pawan Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & others), by which the learned Tribunal has allowed the reference petition and quashed the punishment orders dated 29.07.2008 and 22.02.2010 awarded to the first respondent. Learned Standing counsel has submitted that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that charge no.2 was found proved in the inquiry conducted against the first respondent pursuant to the supplementary charge-sheet. The Disciplinary Authority being disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on charge no.2 had issued a show cause notice to the first respondent pursuant to which charge no.2 was inquired into and was found proved. Thus, it has been submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in appreciation of facts of the case. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we have examined the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal and found that the subject of the supplementary charge-sheet was the same which was already under inquiry being charge no.2. In the first inquiry, charge no.2 was not found proved, however, the Disciplinary Authority had disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer with regard to charge no.2, that being so he had issued a show cause notice to the first respondent to submit his reply on charge no.2. The first inquiry report is on record. A bare perusal of the conclusion of the inquiry report shows that the delay committed by the Executive Engineer in deduction of income tax from the payment made to the contractors was not found deliberate, rather it was based on circumstances which were beyond the reach of first respondent. On submission of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority had considered the same and had observed that the Inquiry Officer had held that there was a delay in deduction of income tax, therefore, the charge no.2 was proved. On the basis of this finding a fresh show cause notice was issued to the first respondent. On submission of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority had considered the same and had observed that the Inquiry Officer had held that there was a delay in deduction of income tax, therefore, the charge no.2 was proved. On the basis of this finding a fresh show cause notice was issued to the first respondent. On comparative study of the show cause notice as well as the finding of the first inquiry report, we found that the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are contrary to the findings of the Inquiry Officer with regard to charge no.2. Moreover, the Disciplinary Authority has failed to record any reason of his disagreement with the finding of the Inquiry Officer, whereas recording of reasons on the point of disagreement of findings of the Inquiry Officer is necessary as has been held in the case of National Fertilizers Ltd. and another Vs. P.K. Khanna, (2005) 7 SCC 597 . In view of the aforesaid submissions, we do not find error in the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.