JUDGMENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. 1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- i. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16.03.2021, passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pragna Division (Respondent No. 2) whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred against the order contained in Memo No. 75 Jamtara dated 24.01.2017 wherein the punishment has been awarded to the petitioner which include punishment of censure and stoppage of Payment and other allowances of his salary during the suspension period except subsistence allowances, was dismissed without giving any cogent reason. ii. For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 75 Jamtara dated 24.01.2017passed by Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara (Respondent No. 3) whereby and whereunder the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment which includes punishment of censure and stoppage of payment and other allowances of his salary during the suspension period except subsistence allowances while differing with the enquiry report. iii. During the pendency of this writ application, direct the concerned respondent to stay the operation of the order dated 24.01.2017 contained in Memo No. 75 Jamtara dated initiated against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 16.07.2004. While serving as the In-charge Headmaster at Middle School, Patrodih, he was suddenly suspended based on complaints and an inspection report dated 17.08.2016. He submitted an explanation on 03.10.2016. The charges against him included issues like poor attendance records, failure to hold school meetings, incomplete registers, under-utilized classrooms in complete construction of building and poor teaching performance. He gave a detailed reply to each charge on 24.12.2016. After departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer cleared him of all charges and submitted the report on 09.01.2017. Despite this, the District Superintendent of Education punished him vide order dated 24.01.2017 with censure and stoppage of salary and allowances (except subsistence allowance) for the period of suspension. He appealed the decision in Service Appeal No. 194/2017-18 to the Commissioner, Santhal Pragana, but his appeal was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that Respondent No. 3 has committed a gross illegality by punishing the present petitioner while differing with the enquiry report and also without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He appealed the decision in Service Appeal No. 194/2017-18 to the Commissioner, Santhal Pragana, but his appeal was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that Respondent No. 3 has committed a gross illegality by punishing the present petitioner while differing with the enquiry report and also without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He also submits that the action of the Respondent No. 3 is bad and against the established procedure. He further submits that Respondent No. 2, as the appellate authority, was duty bound to assign reason while dismissing the appeal against the punishment but he failed to do so. He submits that the actions taken against the petitioner is arbitrary and mala-fide. 4. The learned counsel for respondent submits that the Enquiry Officer adhering due procedure submitted his report, whereby and where under he has admitted that the condition of school is unsatisfactory. He further submitted that discipline is very important in the department, and since the petitioner neglected his duty, he must face the consequences. He submits that the action of the disciplinary authority of differing with the enquiry report is justified. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the disciplinary authority did not give ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner while differing with the enquiry report. The petitioner was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer. The procedure required for disciplinary authority to be followed has not been followed as the petitioner states that after submission of the enquiry report, the petitioner was not given any show-cause notice and Respondent No. 3 overlooking the enquiry report, has wrongly and illegally awarded punishment to the petitioner, thus there is violation of principle of natural justice. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Punjab National Bank And Others vs Kunj Behari Misra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 held that the disciplinary authority must give the employee a chance to be heard before making a final decision when he is differing with enquiry report and no one should be punished without being heard. It is necessary to quote paragraph 17 of the said judgement- 17. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit’s case quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. It is necessary to quote paragraph 17 of the said judgement- 17. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit’s case quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. the aforesaid passages clearly bring out the necessity of the authority which is to finally record an adverse finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. If the inquiry officer had given an adverse finding, as per Karunakar’s case the first stage required an opportunity to be given to the employee to represent to the disciplinary authority, even when an earlier opportunity had been granted to them by the inquiry officer. It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be over-turned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the inquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the inquiring officer holds the charges to be proved then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the inquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings what is of ultimate importance is the findings of the disciplinary authority. 6. In view of the facts of the case and the judgement cited above. Since admittedly the Disciplinary Authority differed with the enquiry report and without giving any opportunity of hearing and without arguing the reason of difference has punished the petitioner, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly allowed. Liberty is reserved with the respondents to proceed from the stage of issuance of notice furnishing the reason of difference with the finding of Enquiry Officer.