ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal challenges the learned Single Judge’s judgment and order dated 22.12.2022 allowing the respondent’s W.P.(S) No. 1601 of 2016 and setting aside the penalty of censure and withholding of two increments with cumulative effect imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority of the appellants. 3. The respondent has already retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Before such retirement, however, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for his alleged involvement in rate estimation and negotiation, concerning a solitary project. The Inquiry Officer submitted a detailed report exonerating the respondent from all the charges levelled against him. 4. However, by notice dated 11.05.2015, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and required the respondent to show cause as to why further action should not be taken against him. 5. The respondent submitted a detailed reply, after which, the Disciplinary Authority, by order dated 28.08.2015, imposed penalty of censure and withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. The respondent's review against the said order was dismissed on 22.12.2015. 6. The learned Single Judge has reasoned that second show cause dated 11.05.2015 was completely vague and the penalty order dated 28.08.2015 did not even consider the respondent's detailed response supporting the findings in the inquiry report that he had exonerated the respondent. Learned Single Judge has noted that even the writ petitioner's review/appeal against the penalty order was summarily rejected without any reasons. Upon consideration of the materials on record, learned Single Judge quashed the penalty imposed upon the respondent and directed the award of consequential benefits. 7. Mr Indranil Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the entire prescribed procedure was duly followed in this case. He submitted that the reasons were stated by the Disciplinary Authority for disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The penalty imposed is also not disproportionate and, therefore, the learned Single Judge should not have interfered in the matter. 8. Mr Bhaduri submitted that the learned Single Judge has assumed the Appellate jurisdiction, when in fact, it was only exercising the powers of judicial review. He submitted that the findings of the Inquiry Officer exonerating the respondent were contrary to the evidence on record, and therefore, the Disciplinary Authority was entitled to disagree with such findings and imposed a penalty upon the respondent. 9. He submitted that the findings of the Inquiry Officer exonerating the respondent were contrary to the evidence on record, and therefore, the Disciplinary Authority was entitled to disagree with such findings and imposed a penalty upon the respondent. 9. We have considered Mr Bhaduri’s submissions and perused the record. However, we are not convinced that the learned Single Judge’s view warrants interference. Our brief reasons for such conclusions are set out hereafter. 10. In this case, the charge against the respondent relates to the preparation of rate estimates, based upon which some negotiations were held with the parties/bidders. The respondent denied such charges, and the Inquiry Officer, after a detailed inquiry, concluded that the rate estimates prepared by the respondent, who was only a Junior Engineer, had in fact been approved by the Chief Engineer and also the State Fire Officer. The records support this conclusion. 11. The Inquiry Officer, based upon the approval by the Chief Engineer and the State Fire Officer of the rate estimates prepared by the respondent, Junior Engineer, drew a reasonable inference that either nothing was wrong in preparing such estimates, or such estimates were prepared under the guidance or were accepted by senior officials. Further, the Inquiry Officer crucially noted that the respondent's estimates were only preliminary, as the detailed rates, which were ultimately prepared, were also approved by the Chief Engineer. By recording these findings, which are supported by the materials on record, the Inquiry Officer exonerated the respondent. 12. The notice dated 11.05.2015 issued by the Disciplinary Authority for disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer is vague. Firstly, it relies on a stray statement in the enquiry report, ignoring the portions that precede and follow it. Secondly, the statement is sought to be torn out of the context. Based upon these two errors, the Disciplinary Authority concludes that the detailed findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are in the nature of surmises. This is not acceptable and has correctly been accepted by the learned Single Judge in its impugned judgment and order. 13. Although the Disciplinary Authority may disagree with the findings recorded by the Enquiring Officer, the reasons for such disagreement must be indicated, at least briefly, in the notice to be issued to the employee. Merely stating that the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings or that the findings are based on surmises is never sufficient. 13. Although the Disciplinary Authority may disagree with the findings recorded by the Enquiring Officer, the reasons for such disagreement must be indicated, at least briefly, in the notice to be issued to the employee. Merely stating that the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings or that the findings are based on surmises is never sufficient. These are conclusions, not reasons for disagreement, and are not even based on any material on record. Therefore, in the notice dated 11.05.2015, the action of imposing a penalty upon the respondent was correctly interfered with by the learned Single Judge. 14. The respondent submitted a detailed response to the second show cause notice dated 11.05.2015. In the penalty order dated 28.08.2015, none of the contentions raised by the respondent in his detailed response has been considered. The Disciplinary Authority simply disagrees with all the contentions raised by the respondent and, based upon the same, proceeds to impose the penalty of censure and withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. There is no reason indicating even briefly why the respondent’s contentions are found to be unacceptable or are required to be rejected. The matter has proceeded on an ipse dixit of the Disciplinary Authority and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not unjustified in interfering with the impugned penalty order. 15. The learned Single Judge, has not exercised any appellate powers, but has interfered with the penalty on the ground, there was non-application of mind and breach of natural justice, given the total absence of reasons, firstly for disagreeing with the detailed report of the Inquiry Officer and secondly for not accepting the writ petitioner's detailed contentions in support of the Inquiry Officer's findings. 16. For all the above reasons, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge’s order warrants no interference. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal without any order for costs.