JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19th January. 1998 by which his representation for payment of the difference of salary during the period under suspension was refused. In this case, the petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding in which he was found guilty of the charges. In the enquiry report dated 28th September, 1994, the Enquiry Officer had found that by reason of lapses on the part of the petitioner. Nagar Mahapalika had suffered pecuniary losses. Therefore, with adverse entry in service record one year's Increment was suggested to be stopped. The disciplinary authority in its order dated 22nd August, 1995 had passed a different order of punishment to the extent that the petitioner would not be entitled to the difference of pay of salary during the period under suspension and that an adverse entry be entered in his service record and he may be reinstated. Mr. G. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer therefore, it was necessary, that reason should be indicated for such disagreement. In support of his contention, he relies on paragraph 10 of the decision in the case of Ram Kishan v. Union of India, JT 1995 (7) SC 43. On this ground, he contends that the order contained in Annexure-
I refusing the payment of difference of salary for the period of suspension and the order contained in Annexure-
2 inflicting the punishment different from what was suggested by the disciplinary authority should be quashed.
2. Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel on the other hand contends that the punishment was reduced by the disciplinary authority and as such there is no infirmity since a lesser punishment has been inflicted. Therefore, it was not necessary to record any reason therefor. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.
3. In reply Mr. G. K. Slngh submits that the punishment inflicted was not lesser than the punishment proposed by the Enquiry Officer. Inasmuch as if one year increment was stopped, the petitioner would have suffered less pecuniary benefit than what he is losing by reason of non-payment of the difference of pay during the period of suspension. Therefore, it was an enhancement of punishment. As such, the giving of reason was mandatory.
4. I have heard both the counsel at length.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner was found guilty on account whereof the Nagar Mahapalika had to suffer loss. The disciplinary authority had suggested a punishment of stoppage of increment of one year together with adverse entry in service record. The Enquiry Officer is supposed to give his finding on the enquiry. The question of punishment is a consideration to be made by the disciplinary authority. The Enquiry Officer is not supposed to inflict punishment. Even if, he suggests punishment, the same has no binding effect. It is open to the disciplinary authority to accept or not to accept the suggested punishment. It is the discretion of the disciplinary authority to inflict punishment or not to do it. In the present case, there is nothing to show that the disciplinary authority had differed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. It has only inflicted different punishment. On a normal situation, the punishment that has been inflicted appears to be a lesser punishment than the Inflicting stoppage of increment of one year. Inasmuch as, by reason of stoppage of increment, the petitioner would not only suffer less payment for the rest of the service period less by one increment till his retirement and would also be entitled to proportionate lesser payment of retiral benefits including gratuity, pension, etc. Similarly, he will be also losing proportionate amount in the contribution to provident fund. Thus, the cumulative effect which could continue even after retirement apart from the period during which he was in service is a matter of calculation which might be greater than the loss on account of nonpayment of the difference of pay during the period of suspension. It cannot be ascertained without definite materials that by reason of non-payment of difference of pay. the petitioner would suffer greater loss. Be that as it may, the disciplinary authority not being bound to accept the suggestion of the disciplinary authority and there having been no difference of opinion with regard to the finding. It was not necessary to record any reason. It is only when there is a difference in the opinion of the disciplinary authority with regard to the finding, the reason may be necessary. In the case Ram Kishan (supra), it was observed that in case of disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer for the purpose of enabling the delinquent to show that the disciplinary authority is persuaded not to disagree with the conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer, the reasons are to be given. In the present case, it was not difference with regard to the finding but with regard to the suggestion of the punishment. Since the Enquiry Officer has no authority to inflict punishment the suggestion is only a pious wish. Therefore, there is no question of disagreement of the disciplinary authority if it inflicts different punishment. The decision cited by Mr. G. K. Singh, therefore, does not help in view of the distinguishing feature in this case where the disciplinary authority did not disagree with the finding.
6. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
However, there will be no order as to costs.