JUDGMENT : I.A. No.4823 of 2020 1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 159 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed opposing the prayer for condoning the delay. 4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation. 5. Accordingly, I.A.No.4823 of 2020 is allowed and delay of 159 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.777 of 2019 6. The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 14.05.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.246 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 25.06.2015 as contained in Memo No.3125, by which, it has been decided to withhold 25 per cent of pension of the writ petitioner, has been quashed and set aside by allowing the writ petition. 7. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under : The fact of the case is that the writ petitioner was initially appointed on 26.01.1979 as Assistant Engineer and was posted at Master Planning Division, Jamui (Bihar). He was promoted as Executive Engineer in-charge while posted in Rural Development Special Circle. Thereafter, he was posted as Technical Adviser at Jamtara and was transferred to the Minor Irrigation Division, Godda sometime in the month of August, 2008. On attaining the age of 60 years, the writ petitioner superannuated on 31.07.2011 while working as Executive Engineer in-charge, Minor Irrigation Division, Godda. A proceeding has been initiated against the writ petitioner after his retirement, vide memo no.3363 dated 07.12.2011 alleging therein that some irregularity has been committed by him, while, he was posted as Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Godda. The enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted on 04.05.2012. The enquiry officer has found the charges not proved against the writ petitioner, therefore, a suggestion has been made that since the amount has allegedly been over-spent amounting to Rs.9,93,740/-, has already been deposited from the end of the writ petitioner, as such, no further action needs to be taken. The enquiry officer has found the charges not proved against the writ petitioner, therefore, a suggestion has been made that since the amount has allegedly been over-spent amounting to Rs.9,93,740/-, has already been deposited from the end of the writ petitioner, as such, no further action needs to be taken. The Additional Secretary to the Government of Jharkhand, on receipt of such enquiry report, sought for an explanation from the writ petitioner as to why an appropriate action be not taken against him for the alleged misconduct. The writ petitioner has filed a detailed reply. After considering the aforesaid reply, the order of punishment was passed, withholding 25 per cent of pension, against which, the writ petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India taking the ground that the enquiry officer since has not found the charges proved against the writ petitioner and further, on the basis of the amount having been deposited by the Junior Engineer through the Assistant Engineer, on the oral direction of the concerned Deputy Development Commissioner, therefore, the disciplinary authority ought to have differ with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, but instead of doing so, a second show cause notice was issued and thereafter, the order of punishment withholding 25 per cent of pension was passed. The learned Single Judge has considered the aforesaid submission and by taking into consideration the position of law, has interfered by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 25.06.2015, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred by the State of Jharkhand. 8. Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned G.A.-I appearing for the appellant-State of Jharkhand has submitted that the learned Single Judge before interfering with the impugned order of punishment has not appreciated the fact that the writ petitioner, admittedly, has been found to be involved in defalcation of the aforesaid money to the tune of Rs.9,93,740/-and as such, the disciplinary authority after following the due procedure, has issued second show cause notice, which has been replied by the writ petitioner and the reply having not found to be satisfactory, the order of punishment has been passed withholding 25 per cent of pension. According to the learned counsel for the appellant-State, the departmental proceeding has been initiated by following the due procedure as also in pursuant to the provision of Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. 9. Learned counsel, therefore, in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect has submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such, the same may be quashed and set aside. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-State, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 11. We, before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deem it fit and proper to refer certain undisputed fact, as per the material available on record. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-State, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 11. We, before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deem it fit and proper to refer certain undisputed fact, as per the material available on record. Admittedly herein, the writ petitioner, while posted as Executive Engineer in-charge, Minor Irrigation Division, Godda, who was superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.07.2011 has been proceeded, under the provision of Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, against the irregularities committed for causing pecuniary loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.9,93,740/-, for ready reference, memorandum of charge is being referred hereinbelow:- ^^vkids }kjk ftyk xzkeh.k fodkl vfHkdj.k] xksM~Mk }kjk eujsxk ;kstuk ds vkdfLedrk fuf/k ls fnukad 17-11-2008 dks psd la[;k&079214 ls 10]00]000-00 :0 ,oa fnukad 04-02-2009 dks psd la[;k& 251443 ls 25]00]000-00 :0 ;kfu dqy 35]00]000-00 yk[k :0 miyC/k djk;s x;s jkf’k ls Hkkjr ljdkj] xzkeh.k fodkl ea=ky; ds i=kad&28012@3@05&06 d`f"k Hkou] ubZ fnYyh] fnukad 30-03-2007 ls fuxZr funs’k] ftlesa iz’kklfud en esa xSark] dqnky] csypk] /kkek] rxkM+ vkfn Ø; djus dk izko/kku ugha Fkk] dk mYya?ku djrs gq, rFkk fcgkj foÙkh; fu;kekoyh >kj[kaM ljdkj }kjk ;Fkk vaxhd`r ds fu;e&235 ,oa 241 dk Hkh mYya?ku dj fcuk fufonk vkeaf=r fd;s gh egt dkxt esa gh ,sls nqdkuksa ls dqnky] xSark vkfn Ø; djus dk QthZ vfHkJo izkIr dj mu vfHkJoksa ds vk/kkj ij dqy 9]93]740-00 :0 ikfjr djrs gq, fcuk lkexzh dk HkaMkj iath esa ntZ djk;s rFkk HkaMkj esa izkIr fd;s gh Hkqxrku fn[kkdj xcu dj fy;k x;kA rRdkyhu fcgkj ljdkj ¼eaf=eaMy ,oa fuxjkuh foHkkx½ ds fuxjkuh vk;qDr ds xksiuh; i=kad 733@r0 i0 dks0 iVuk] fnukad 09-03-1994 dk Hkh vkids }kjk mYya?ku fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa ;g Li"V funsf’kr fd;k x;k Fkk fd foHkkxh; :i ls dk;Z djus ds fy, lkefxz;ksa dh vkiwfrZ fufonk@cktkj Hkko ¼dksVs’ku½ ij ugha ysdj eks0 2]000-00 :0 rd ds vyx&vyx VqdM+ksa esa ckaVdj lh/ks udn Hkqxrku dj fofHkUu izeaMyksa ds }kjk ys yh tkrh gS] tks xyr gSA eks0 2]000-00 :0 rd dk dqy Ø; ;k vkiwfrZ fcuk fufonk@cktkj Hkko ¼dksVs’ku½ ls djkus dh 'kfDr dsoy foHkkxk/;{kksa dks nh x;h gS] ftl dksfV esa dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark ;k muds v/khuLFk inkf/kdkjh ugha vkrs gSaA foHkkxk/;{k Hkh fdlh cM+s Ø;@vkiwfrZ dks viuh l{kerk esa ykus Hkj ds fy, mls 2]000-00 :0 rd ds VqdM+s esa ugha ckaV ldrs gSaA bl izdkj vkids }kjk 9]93]740-00 :0 dh lkefxz;ksa ;Fkk&dqnky] xSark] /kkek] csypk vkfn dk vkiwfrZ fcuk fufonk@cktkj Hkko ¼dksVs’ku½ izkIr fd;s vfLrRoghu nqdkuksa ls egt dkxt esa Ø; fn[kkdj yksd/ku dk dqVdj.k ds lgkjs Hkz"Vkpkj ,oa dnkpkfjrk cjrrs gq, xcu dj fy;k x;kA vkidk mDr d`R; Hkkjr ljdkj] xzkeh.k fodkl ea=k;y ds i=kad&28012@3@05&06 d`f"k Hkou] ubZ fnYyh] fnukad 30-03-2007 ,oa rRdkyhu fcgkj ljdkj ¼ea=heaMy ,oa fuxjkuh foHkkx½ ds fuxjkuh vk;qDr ds xksiuh; i=kad&733@r0 i0 dks0 iVuk] fnukad 09-03-1994 ds lkFk&lkFk fcgkj foÙkh; fu;ekoyh ds fu;e&9] 235 ,oa 241 dk mYya?ku djus ds lkFk&lkFk vkijkf/kd d`R; gS] tks fcgkj ljdkjh lsod vkpj.k fu;ekoyh&1976 ds fu;e& 3(1) (i), (ii), (iii), 3(2) & 3(3) ds fo:) vkpj.k djus okyk gS] tks n.Muh; gSA^^ The enquiry officer has been appointed, before whom, the writ petitioner has appeared and put-forth his defence to the effect that there is no involvement of the Executive Engineer, since, whatever money has been allotted for the concerned work, was transmitted to the account of the concerned Junior Engineer and when it has been found that the work has not been completed in entirety, the Junior Engineer has deposited the amount through Assistant Engineer before the Executive Engineer, the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner on oral instruction of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda has deposited the said amount in the Government Exchequer, as such, there is no irregularities committed on the part of the writ petitioner, as would be evident from the reply furnished by the writ petitioner, which reads as under:- ^^dfFkr lkeku duh; vfHk;arkvksa }kjk [kjhnk x;k FkkA blfy, O;;xr jkf’k ,oa [kjhns x;s lkeku dh lkjh tokcnsgh mudh gSA lR;kiu dk volj fn;s fcuk mifodkl vk;qDr ds }kjk ,Q0 vkbZ0 vkj0 djus dh psrkouh ls Hk;Hkhr lHkh duh; vfHk;arkvksa us vius&vius }kjk O;;xr jkf’k izeaMy esa tek djk;kA ftls izeaMyh; [kkrk esa tek djkdj dqy jkf’k ¼993740@&:0½ dks lesfdr :i ls izeaMyh; psd }kjk mik;qDr dks tek djk fn;k x;kA blesa u rks eSa nks"kh gw¡ vkSj u eSa dksbZ nks"k Lohdkj fd;k gSA fuEufyf[kr lR; ?kVukØe ls Lor% Li"V gksxk fd O;;xr jkf’k tek djkuk nks"k dh LohdkjksfDr ugha cfYd mifodkl vk;qDr ¼Jh fnyhi >k½ }kjk tcju Hk;kØkar dj jkf’k olwy fd;k x;kA ¼d½ dfFkr xSark] /kkek] dqnky] csypk vkfn ftu nqdkuksa ls [kjhns x;s Fks mu nqdkuksa ds lR;kiu ¼iwokZxzg xzLr gksdj½ djus esa mUgksaus vius in] 'kfDr ,oa fo[;kr izHkko dk nq:i;ksx djds nqdku u gksus dk izek.k nwljs nqdkunkjksa ij ncko nsdj tqVk;kA tcfd us’kuy ysoy ekWfuVj ds tk¡p esa lacaf/kr dqN nqdkunkj ,oa turk us fyf[kr :i esa nqdku gksus ,oa muls d`f"k rFkk ?kjsyw mi;ksx ds lkeku [kjhns tkus dks LohdkjkA vFkkZr~ lHkh nqdku Fks ,oa dfFkr lkeku Hkh [kjhnk x;k FkkA ¼[k½ mifodkl vk;qDr ¼Jh fnyhi >k½ vius i=kad&628 N. fnukad 11-04-2011 tks 07-04-2011 dks gLrk{kfjr gS] ysfdu tkucw> dj 11-11-2004 dks fuxZr gS] }kjk vkns’k fn;k fd lHkh duh; vfHk;ark@lgk;d vfHk;ark ,oa dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark Hkh mifLFkr gksdj lacaf/kr nqdku ,oa [kjhns x;s lkeku dk lR;kiu fnukad 13-04-2011 rd djk ysaA lcdks ekywe gS fd dksbZ D.D.O. nqdku tk¡p dj izek.kd ikfjr ugha djrk gSA fnukad 11-04-2011 dks eSa ¼dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark½ nqedk esa eq[; vfHk;ark ds cSBd esa x;k FkkA fnukad 12-04-2011 dks jkeuoeh dk jktif=r vodk’k Fkk ftlesa dqN duh; vfHk;ark@lgk;d vfHk;ark dkuwu O;oLFkk esa izfrfu;qDr FksA fnukad 13-04-2011 dks og i= eq>s dk;kZy; Mkd esa feykA D;k mlh fnu lHkh duh; vfHk;ark@lgk;d vfHk;ark dks muds eq[;ky;ksa ls cqykdj lHkh nqdkuksa dk lR;kiu rFkk yxHkx 250 dk;ZLFkyksa ij tkdj lkekuksa ,oa jftLVj esa la/kkj.k rFkk ikorh dk lR;kiu djk ysuk laHko Fkk\ & dnkfi ughaA eSaus mlh fnu viuk i=kad&258] fnukad 13-04-2011 ¼izfrfyfi layXu½ ysdj muds dk;kZy; d{k esa oLrqfLFkfr Li"V djrs gq, i= gLrxr djk;k ,oa le; lhek foLrkj dk vuqjks/k fd;kA ijUrq mifodkl vk;qDr us lh/ks vLohdkj dj fn;kA bl izdkj nqdkuksa ds lR;kiu djkus] [kjhns x;s lkekuksa dk LFkyokj HkkSfrd lR;kiu djkus rFkk lkekuksa ds la/kkj.k ,oa ikorh dh tk¡p djk ysus dk volj u nsdj mUgksaus izkd`frd U;k; dk xyk ?kksaVdj fujadq’krk iwoZd fnukad 15-04-2011 dks vusdkusd euekuk vkjksi ,oa n.M dh /kkjk,¡ yxkdj viuk i=kad&660 N fnukad 15-04-2011 fuxZr dj fn;kA Li"V gS fd os ge funksZ"kksa dks Q¡lkus dh ea’kk iwoZ ls iky j[ks Fks vU;Fkk lR;kiu djk ysrs rks fu’p; gh lR; lkeus vk tkrkA ¼x½ fnukad 09-06-2011 dks lHkh duh; vfHk;ark@lgk;d vfHk;ark muds dk;kZy; d{k esa feys ,oa lR;kiu dk volj nsus dk vuqjks/k fd;kA ijUrq mUgksaus dksbZ volj u nsdj l[r funsZ’k fn;k fd O;;xr jkf’k tek djks ugha rks l[r dkuwuh dkjokbZ >syus ds fy, rS;kj jgksA ¼?k½ fnukad 20-06-2011 dks mifodkl vk;qDr ¼Jh >k½ us eq>s VsyhQksu djds vius d{k esa cqyk;k ,oa O;;xr jkf’k tek djokus ds laca/k esa iwNk ,oa Li"V dM+k funsZ’k fn;k fd O;;xr jkf’k gj gky esa duh; vfHk;ark ls okil tek ysdj mik;qDr ds ;gk¡ tek djokbZ, vU;Fkk vki lfgr lc ij ,Q0 vkbZ0 vkj0 dj tsy Hkstok,¡xsA ¼³½ eq>s djhc ,d ekg esa lsokfuo`r gksuk FkkA esjh fLFkfr dk vanktk yxk;k tk ldrk gS fd fdruh etcwjh ,oa foo’krk esa muds vU;k;iw.kZ funsZ’k dk ikyu djok;kA ¼p½ lHkh lacaf/kr duh; vfHk;arkvksa us vius&vius }kjk O;;xr jkf’k vius&vius lgk;d vfHk;ark ds ek/;e ls izeaMy esa tek djok;k ,oa Li"V lqfpr fd;k fd mifodkl vk;qDr ds }kjk dfBu naM fn;s tkus ds Hk;] yksdykt ,oa ifjokj ds Hkfo"; dks lkspdj osru ls rFkk dtkZ iSapk djds tek djk jgs gSa ¼tek jkf’k dk fooj.k layXu rFkk duh; vfHk;arkvksa dk i= layXu½A ¼N½ duh; vfHk;arkvksa }kjk tek jkf’k 993740@& :0 izeaMyh; cSad [kkrs esa tek djkdj vius i=kad&526 fnukad 27-06-2011 }kjk mifodkl vk;qDr dks bldh lwpuk ns nh xbZA iqu% vius i=kad&537 fnukad 29-06-2011 }kjk og jkf’k 993740@& :0 izeaMyh; psd }kjk mik;qDr xksM~Mk dks tek djk fn;k x;kA blesa eSaus dksbZ nks"k ugha fd;kA eSaus flQZ viuk dÙkZO; ikyu fd;kA blls fdlh Hkh :i esa esjs }kjk nks"k dh LohdkjksfDr izekf.kr ugha ekuk tkuk pkfg,A vkf[kj duh; vfHk;arkvksa }kjk tek djk;k x;k og jkf’k izeaMyh; [kkrs esa D;ksa j[krkA^^ The enquiry officer has accepted the version of the writ petitioner and has given specific finding to the effect which reads as under:- ^^fo"k; oLrq ftyk iz’kklu ls eujsxk ds rgr jkf’k izkIr dj y?kq flapkbZ izeaMy] xksM~Mk }kjk djk;s x, dk;Z ds laca/k esa gSA dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] y?kq flapkbZ izeaMy] xksM~Mk }kjk ftyk iz’kklu ls eujsxk dk;ksZ ds fy, izkIr jkf’k esa ls 9]93]740@& :0 dk ¼;a=&laa=½ ;Fkk xSark] dqnky] Vksdjh ,oa vU; fofo/k lkexzh dk Ø; fd;k x;kA Ø; fd;s x, lkekuksa ds ys[kk dk la/kkj.k lkekU;r% voj izeaMy inkf/kdkjh@duh; vfHk;ark ds }kjk fd;k tkuk jgrk gSA ftldh izfof"V LFky ys[kk] ;a=&laa= ys[kk cgh esa fd;k tkrk gS] ijUrq ,slk ugha fd;k x;kA mi fodkl vk;qDr ds }kjk tk¡p ds Øe esa ftu laLFkkuks@nqdkuksa ls Ø; dk mYys[k n’kkZ;k x;k og QthZ ik;k x;kA vr% mDr en eas Ø; dh xbZ lkexzh dh jkf’k lansgkRed ikrs gq, ftyk iz’kklu dh vksj ls naMkRed dkjZokbZ ds rgr O;; dh xbZ jkf’k dks ftyk iz’kklu us Jh lqjsUnz dqekj mik/;k;] rRdkyhu dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark ls mDr en esa O;; dh xbZ jkf’k 9]93]740@& :0 dks mik;qDr] xksM~Mk ds ;gk¡ psd ¼Nk;kizfr layXu½ ds ek/;e ls tek djk fy;kA pw¡fd ekeyk ftyk iz’kklu ls lacaf/kr gS ,oa ftyk iz’kklu ds }kjk mDr ekeys esa naMkRed dkjZokbZ ds rgr ftyk iz’kklu us jkf’k dh olwyh Jh lqjsUnz mik/;k; rRdkyhu dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] y?kq flapkbZ izeaMy] xksM~Mk ls dj yhA vr% vyx ls foHkkx }kjk dksbZ dkjZokbZ djuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA^^ The enquiry officer has forwarded the aforesaid report. The disciplinary authority has issued second show cause notice, asking the writ petitioner to furnish its reply before taking any decision. The writ petitioner has given its reply reiterating the thing that there is no irregularity having been committed by him, rather, it is the Junior Engineer in whose account, the amount has been deposited by the Junior Engineer concerned to the account of the Assistant Engineer concerned and from there, the amount has been transferred in the account of the Executive Engineer, i.e., the writ petitioner, and thereafter, on oral instruction of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda, the aforesaid amount has been deposited in the State Exchequer, but the said reply has found not satisfactory and thereafter, the order of punishment was passed on 25.06.2015 withholding 25 per cent of pension of the writ petitioner. The order of punishment has been assailed before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the fact, basis upon which, the order of penalty has been passed, i.e., the admission of guilt of the writ petitioner has been found to be contrary to the record, since, according to the learned Single Judge, the enquiry report does not reflect that the writ petitioner has admitted the guilt, rather, it is the case of the writ petitioner that the amount has been deposited by the Junior Engineer concerned to the account of the Assistant Engineer concerned and from there, the amount has been transferred in the account of the Executive Engineer, i.e., the writ petitioner, and thereafter, on oral instruction of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda, the aforesaid amount has been deposited in the State Exchequer. The learned Single Judge, on the basis of the said aspect of the matter, has interfered with the impugned order. 12. This Court, on perusal of the enquiry report more particularly the part of the report, as quoted and referred hereinabove, is of the considered view that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge to the effect that there is no admission on the part of the writ petitioner about the guilt, for the reason, as would appear from the enquiry report as referred above, it is defence of the writ petitioner, basis upon which, the enquiry officer has given such finding, as referred above and the charges have not found to be proved against the writ petitioner. 13. 13. There is no dispute about the legal position of Law that the finding recorded by the enquiry officer about not proving of charge, does not bind the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has got power to differ from the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Punjab National Bank & Ors v. Kunj Bihari Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 , wherein, at paragraph no.19, it has been held which reads hereunder as:- “19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” 14. This Court, has posed the specific question upon the learned counsel for the State-appellant that as to whether, any difference of opinion has been shown by the disciplinary authority by providing an opportunity to file representation, he, in response, has referred to the show cause notice dated 03.12.2013 but he has failed to satisfy this Court, even in that show cause, there is no difference of opinion over the finding recorded by the enquiry officer. 15. 15. It requires to refer herein in the circumstances where the disciplinary authority differ with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, there is no requirement to issue second show cause notice, since, the second show cause notice is only to be issued, when the finding recorded by the enquiry officer proving the charges, is being accepted by the disciplinary authority and in order to provide an opportunity to the delinquent employee, the second show cause notice is to be issued. But in a case where, the enquiry officer has found the charges not proved, in that circumstances, it is not the second show cause notice, rather, the difference of opinion, is to be given to the writ petitioner by providing an opportunity to make representation on the point of difference, therefore, according to the considered view of this Court, both on fact and legal position, the order passed by the disciplinary authority is not sustainable in the eye of law, for the reason i.e., (i) The charges have not found to be proved against the writ petitioner on the basis of acceptance of plea of the writ petitioner by discarding the contention of the disciplinary authority that the writ petitioner has admitted the guilt. But, we have not found from the enquiry report that the writ petitioner has ever admitted the guilt, as would appear from the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, as quoted and referred hereinabove. Therefore, since the order passed by the disciplinary authority withholding the 25 per cent pension, cannot be said to be a justified decision, for the reason, that the disciplinary authority has inflicted the aforesaid punishment on the pretext of the fact that the writ petitioner has admitted the guilt, while that is not the correct position. (ii) The enquiry officer has found the charges not proved against the writ petitioner, but the disciplinary authority has not differed with the aforesaid finding showing the difference of opinion with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and thereby, no opportunity has been provided to the writ petitioner, therefore, in that view of the matter, according to our considered view, there is violation of principle of natural justice, as such, the order inflicting punishment upon the writ petitioner, as impugned, cannot be said to be sustainable. 16. 16. This Court after having discussed the factual as also the legal aspect, as above, has considered the order passed by the learned Single Judge and found therefrom that the learned Single Judge has considered the fact about admission of guilt as also has found that there is no substance to such allegation as such, interfered with the order impugned. 17. This Court, in addition to that factual aspect, as per the discussion made hereinabove, relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Punjab National Bank & Ors. Kunj Bihari Mishra (supra) is also of the view that even though, the principle of natural justice has not been followed by not showing the difference of opinion with the finding recorded by the enquiry officer, therefore, according to our considered view, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with. 18. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 19. In consequent to dismissal of this appeal, I.A. No.4825 of 2020 also stands disposed of.