ORDER K.N. Singh, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against an order of the State Government dated February 23, 1972, dismissing the petitioner from service. 2. The petitioner was a member of the U.P. Agriculture Service, Junior Scale, and was posted as District Soil Conservation Officer at Jhansi and Kanpur. Certain complaints were received against him which were enquired into by the Vigilance Department. After the completion of the preliminary enquiry the matter was referred to the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the U.P. Administrative Tribunal (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules. On 9th November, 1967 the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry by the Administrative Tribunal. He was served with a charge sheet containing 44 charges, he submitted his explanation and denied the charges. A full-fledged enquiry was held before the Administrative Tribunal where witnesses were examined and the petitioner was afforded opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses. On completion of the enquiry, the Administrative Tribunal submitted its findings and report to the State Government on 12th March, 1970. Thereupon the State Government issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 4th September, 1970, calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service on the charges proved against him. A copy of the findings recorded by the Administrative Tribunal was supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause notice. After obtaining the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, the State Government issued the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the dismissal order. 3. Sri B.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity of defence as contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution inasmuch as the recommendations of the Administrative Tribunal in relation to the punishment proposed against the petitioner were not supplied to the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner could not get opportunity of meeting the same, although the State Government accepted those recommendations and it was thereafter that the show cause notice was issued and the order of dismissal was passed. The necessary averments in this respect have been made by the petitioner in paragraphs 21, 26 and 27. The necessary averments in this respect have been made by the petitioner in paragraphs 21, 26 and 27. In these paragraphs the petitioner has asserted that the petitioner has come to know that the Administrative Tribunal had made recommendations for awarding punishment to the petitioner separately which was not included in its finding. A copy of the same had been supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause notice. The Administrative Tribunal had made its recommendations about punishment separately. In that letter the Administrative Tribunal recommended punishment of stoppage of one year's increment in respect of charges 1 and 3 while the Tribunal had recommended the petitioner's dismissal in respect of charge No. 2. 4. It is further asserted that if the petitioner had been given a copy of the recommendation submitted by the Tribunal regarding punishment then the petitioner would have filed his reply against those recommendations and would have persuaded the Government not to award the extreme penalty of dismissal. Ghanshyam Lal Srivastava, an Upper Division Assistant of the U.P. Agriculture Department, Civil Secretariat has filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the State Government. In paragraphs 10 and 12 of his counter-affidavit he has denied the petitioner's allegations made in the petition that the recommendation made by the Tribunal had not been communicated to the petitioner. He asserted that the complete report of the Administrative Tribunal including the recommendations made by the Tribunal were communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the correctness of the allegations. In support of the allegations he produced the original copy of the report of the Administrative Tribunal which was submitted along with the show cause notice. On a perusal of the same I find that the recommendations made by the Tribunal about punishment had not been supplied to the petitioner. In the circumstances I directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the original record before me to find out whether any separate document was sent by the Tribunal proposing punishment to be given to the petitioner and whether any copy of that document was supplied to the petitioner and for that purpose I adjourned the hearing of the case. 5. Today the learned Standing counsel has produced the original records before me. 5. Today the learned Standing counsel has produced the original records before me. A perusal of the same shows that in addition to the report of the Administrative Tribunal on the charges, the Tribunal sent a secret demi official letter (No. 798/A. T-70 dated March 12, 1970), addressed to Sri A.K. Mustafy, Commissioner and secretary to the Government U.P. Vigilance Department, Lucknow. The report contained detailed recommendations in respect of the punishment. The learned Standing Counsel has very fairly conceded before me that the copy of the D.O. letter was not supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause notice and the petitioner was never afforded any opportunity to show cause against the said recommendations. I have perused the original document myself. On a perusal of the original documents, I am also satisfied that the contents of the said D.O. letter were not communicated to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the averments contained in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the counter affidavit of Ghanshyam Lal Srivastava are incorrect and no reliance can be placed on his statement. In this view of the matter it is clear that the petitioner's assertion that the recommendations made by the Administrative. Tribunal were not communicated to him and he could get no opportunity of defence is fully justified and proved. 6. In State of Gujarat v. R.G. Teredesai, AIR 1969 SC 1294 = (1969 Lab IC 1547) it was laid down that if the Enquiry Officer made recommendations in the matter of punishment which was likely to affect the mind of the punishing authority even will regard to penalty or punishment to be imposed on such officer, the concept of reasonable opportunity requires that the entire report of the enquiry including his views in the matter of punishment should be disclosed to the delinquent officer. If the recommendations made by the Enquiry Officer in the matter of punishment are withheld and not disclosed to the Government servant concerned, it would not meet the requirements of reasonable opportunity of defence as contemplated of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court are fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The Administrative Tribunal made separate recommendations in the matter of punishment which affected the mind of the State Government in passing the order of dismissal against the petitioner. In the circumstances the order of dismissal is rendered void. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court are fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The Administrative Tribunal made separate recommendations in the matter of punishment which affected the mind of the State Government in passing the order of dismissal against the petitioner. In the circumstances the order of dismissal is rendered void. I have taken a similar view in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 311 of 1973 (All), Om Prakash Gupta v. State. 7. In the result I allow the petition and quash the order dated 23rd February, 1972. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.