( 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 years 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 pa