JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order as contained in Memo dated 06.06.2013 by which the petitioner has been awarded punishment of censure and recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,05,935/-. 2. The facts, in brief, is that the Flying Squad Wing of the Water Resources Department enquired into the work of construction of ponds and wells executed during the financial year 2004-2005 under Minor Irrigation Division, Dhanbad. On enquiry, it was found that less work was done with respect to payment made to the contractors in respect of work of pond and well. Basing on such enquiry report, a show cause notice enclosing therewith memo of Charge “Prapatra Ka” was served upon the petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was posted as Executive Engineer. Thereafter, the petitioner replied to the said show cause stating therein that the work in question is of the year 2002-03, which has been done by his predecessor and payment of 8398 Cubic Mt of earthwork and soft work was made by his predecessor and petitioner has only made payment of 5200 Cubic M and on technical issue petitioner submitted that in the meantime since more than three years has lapsed, hence, requested for fresh enquiry. It has been averred that agreeing with the reply submitted by the petitioner, the matter was re-enquired and it was established that work was actually completed and work recorded in the measurement book was correct and the petitioner's objection that measurement can be done only after taking into account the situation was accepted by the enquiry officer, therefore, payment made for 13598 Cubic Meter earth work was found to be correct. But, to the utter surprise and consternation, the order of punishment 06.06.2013 was served upon the petitioner, which is impugned in this case. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the impugned order has been passed without any enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It has been submitted that while passing the impugned order neither the contents of re-enquiry has been considered nor the same has been mentioned in the impugned order. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the impugned order has been passed without any enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It has been submitted that while passing the impugned order neither the contents of re-enquiry has been considered nor the same has been mentioned in the impugned order. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the so-called enquiry neither enquiry officer was appointed nor any witness was examined and even after second enquiry, which has though not been considered by the respondents-authorities, no second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner and straightway, impugned order has been passed, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Lav Nigam Vs. Chairman & Md. ITI Ltd. & Anr. as reported in (2006) 9 SCC 440 and Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors as reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427 . 5. Assailing the averments made in the writ application, counter affidavit has been filed by respondents wherein it has been submitted that the Department after examining the report submitted by Flying Squad Wing as well as the report submitted by Chief Engineer (Mechanical), on re-enquiry, came to the conclusion that the report of the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) is not acceptable and held that petitioner along with other officials have made payment to the contractor in excess with respect to the work done. Hence, there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order, so as to warrant interference by this Court. 6. After bestowing my anxious considerations to the rivalized submissions and on perusal of the relevant records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference, due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements: (i) On the basis of report submitted by Flying Squad Wing for making excess payment, in respect of construction of pond and well, to the contractors, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice, to which, the petitioner replied. It appears that considering the contents of reply, the matter was re-enquired by the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) who submitted second enquiry report. It appears that considering the contents of reply, the matter was re-enquired by the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) who submitted second enquiry report. But, the disciplinary authority brushing aside the second enquiry without differing to the conclusion arrived at by the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) and without giving any cogent reason and even without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, straightway passed the impugned order, which is cryptic, bald and non-speaking, hence, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is settled principles of law that whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority, then before coming to its own conclusion, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and further opportunity to represent before him must be afforded to such delinquent employee. View of this Court gets fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Kunj Behari Misra as reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 . (ii) Furthermore, it appears that in the case at hand the departmental proceeding is fraught with procedural irregularity, as neither enquiry officer was appointed nor any witnesses was examined and even after second enquiry, no second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner, rendering the impugned order vulnerable for breach of principles of Audi Alteram Partem. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, order as contained in Memo dated 06.06.2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.