B.S. Sinha, J. The petitioner Fulena in this application prays for quashing Annexure-6, which is an office order no. 228/H, dated the 19th May, 1972, issued under the signature of Shri K. Prasad, Health Officer, by which the petitioner's services from the Patna Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') have been dispensed with, with immediate effect under the orders of the Administrator of the Corporation. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a drain cleaning sweeper in the Corporation in 1961 and in due course, he was confirmed on that post. Subsequently, the petitioner was posted in ward No. 37 of the Corporation. By an order no. 5211. dated the 23rd December, 1970, the petitioner was charged with (I) mis-behaviour with and abusing a lower Division clerk Shri Jamunadhar Lal Sinha and uttering objectionable words against him on 31.7, 1970, (II) not complying with the direction to submit show cause against the above mentioned incident and (III) uttering objectionable words against the Corporation Medical Officer, Dr. S. Bose in his Chamber on 11.12.1970 and also of mis-behaviour with him and obstructing him in the discharge of his duty on that date, The petitioner submitted his explanation against the charges levelled against him which having not been found satisfactory, the Assistant, Administrator Bankipore Circle, was asked to enquire into the matter who, after conducting a regular enquiry and after examining witnesses, submitted his report. There upon the Administrator of the Corporation vide his memo no, 84/H, dated 31st January, 1970, served a second notice on the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from the service of the Corporation. It may be mentioned here that on the 1st September, 1967, the State Government, under section 330 (hereinafter called 'the Act') of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, superseded the Corporati0n and since then under section 531 of the Act, the Corporation is being administered by the Administrator. 3. On receipt of the above mentioned second show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the Administrator, copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ application. The explanation having not been found satisfactory, the Administrator discharged him from the services of the Corporation with immediate effect, which was communicated to him by Annexure. 6. 4. 3. On receipt of the above mentioned second show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the Administrator, copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ application. The explanation having not been found satisfactory, the Administrator discharged him from the services of the Corporation with immediate effect, which was communicated to him by Annexure. 6. 4. The only point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of discharge is bad in law in as much as it is in violation of Rules 11 and 12 of the Patna Municipal Corporation (Appointment, Duties, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called as the Rules'). The Rules are statutory rules and have been framed in accordance with section 62 of the Act. 5. To appreciate the contention of the petitioner's counsel, it is relevant to refer to Rule 11 of the Rules, which reads as follows :-- "11. After the enquiry against the person charged has been completed and after the authority conducting enquiry has arrived at a provisional conclusion in regard to the penalty to be imposed, the person charged should if the penalty proposed is dismissal removal or reduction in rank be supplied with a copy of the report of the enquiring authority and be called upon to show cause against the particular punishment proposed to be inflicted. He shall be allowed a maximum period of one month to do so." 6. By reference to the above mentioned rule it will be seen that if the penalty proposed, against a person after an enquiry has been conducted against him be dismissal, removal or reduction in rank then the show cause notice served on him should be accompanied with a copy of the report of the enquiring authority. This provision is incorporated to enable the delinquent employee to show cause not only against the punishment proposed to be inflicted, but also against the report of the enquiring authority. 7. In the instant case, it has been urged that when the second show cause notice, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, was served on the petitioner, he was not given along with it a copy of the enquiry report. 7. In the instant case, it has been urged that when the second show cause notice, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, was served on the petitioner, he was not given along with it a copy of the enquiry report. The case of the respondent Municipal Corporation, on the other hand is that there has been no violation of rule 11 and along with the show cause notice, a copy of the report of the enquiring officer, which is appended to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation and is marked as Annexure-A, was supplied to the petitioner. 8. The question, therefore, that falls for consideration is whether the second show cause notice which IS Annexure-4 to the writ application was given to the petitioner, along with the enquiry report as contemplated by rule 11. The petitioner in paragraphs 17 and 1 8 bas stated that the purported notice of second show cause was not in accordance with rules 11 and 12 of the Rules as along with this notice, the petitioner Was not furnished with a copy of the enquiry report of the enquiring officer. On the other hand, in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation it has been stated that the second show cause notice. copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ application is quite in keeping with rules 11 and 12 of the service rules and it was accompanied by copies of the enquiry proceeding and the report of the Enquiry Officer, as would be evidenced from the fact that no grievance was made by the petitioner wit h regard to this either in his reply to the second show cause notice Or in his representation, dated 25.7.1972. It may be stated here that the representation, dated the 26th July, 1972 copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition was an appeal by the petitioner to the Administrator for his re-instatement in service after he had received the order, copy of which is annexure-I, dispensing with his service from the Corporation with immediate effect. It may be stated here that the representation, dated the 26th July, 1972 copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition was an appeal by the petitioner to the Administrator for his re-instatement in service after he had received the order, copy of which is annexure-I, dispensing with his service from the Corporation with immediate effect. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit, it is further stated that with regard to the allegation of the petitioner in paragraph 18 of his petition, it is absolutely wrong and incorrect to say that the petitioner in his reply dated 21-2-72 (Annexure-5) had made a complaint that he was not furnished with any enquiry report and/or provisional findings. As has been stated above the petitioner was supplied with the copies of the proceedings of the enquiry and the report of the Enquiry Officer along with the second show cause notice (Annexure-4)" 9. With regard to the statements contained in paragraph 17 of the writ petition, where the petitioner stated that along with the second show cause notice, a copy of the report of the enquiry was not communicated to the petitioner, I find from the affidavit made by the petitioner that it is a submission made to this Court. In such circumstances, no reliance can be placed on paragraph 17 of his writ petition for determining whether a copy of the enquiry report had been furnished to him or not. However, in paragraph•]8 the petitioner again reiterated that he was not furnished with a copy of the enquiry report along with the second show cause notice and this statement of his according to his affidavit, is true to his knowledge. On the other hand, the denials made in paragraph 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation are according to the affidavit flied therein, based upon information derived from the records maintained in the office of the Corporation, which the deponent, who is an employee of the Corporation, believe to be true. On the other hand, the denials made in paragraph 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation are according to the affidavit flied therein, based upon information derived from the records maintained in the office of the Corporation, which the deponent, who is an employee of the Corporation, believe to be true. By reference to paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the corporation it will be seen that for the statement that a report of the enquiry officer was served on the petitioner along with the second show cause notice is based on the fact that in his explanation (Annexure 5 to the writ application) in reply to the second show cause notice served on the petitioner, copy of which is Annexure-4, the petitioner did not make a grievance that such copy of the enquiry report had not been furnished to him. However, on going through Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which is the explanation of the petitioner, we find that in paragraph 2 of his explanation, he has made the following statements- "Mere biruddh Jagaye gaye abhiyogon ki niyamanusar janch nahhin hui, Mujhe janch padadhikari ka pratibedan awam niyukti padadhikari ka prarambhik niryan mujhe nahin upalabdha kiya gaya," 10. The second sentence in this paragraph means that the report of the enquiry officer and the provisional decision of the appointing authority have not been made available to the petitioner. Mr. P. K. Bose learned counsel for the Corporation however urged that the words "nahin upalabdha kiya gaya" mean that he could not understand them. I am unable to accept this submission of the learned counsel. Those words to my mind clearly mean that the documents referred to there in were not made available to him. It will therefore, be seen-that no reliance can be placed on the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation with regard to this fact, inasmuch as, in the counter-affidavit, it was specifically stated that the petitioner had made no grievance with regard to the non furnishing of the enquiry report to him in his explanation to the Administrator. This is clearly a wrong statement. 11. In such circumstance, we asked Mr. This is clearly a wrong statement. 11. In such circumstance, we asked Mr. P.K. Bose to produce the relevent files of the Corporation before us to show if there was anything in the file to indicate that along with the second show cause notice, a copy of the enquiry report had been furnished to the petitioner and for this purpose, learned counsel was given one week's time on the 12th of March, 1976. However, on the 20th of March, 1976, Mr. P. K. Bose, informed us that the relevant files along with the various other files of the Corporation had got unfortunately destroyed in the fire that had been set to the Corporation building in March, 1974. In such circumstances, no file was available which we could see. 12. In view of the fact that the petitioner had made a positive statement in his writ petition that he was not supplied a copy of the enquiry report along with the second show cause notice, which is supported by Annexure 5 the explanation that the petitioner submitted after the receipt of the second show cause notice, I have no option but to hold that the petitioner, along with his second show cause notice was not furnished with a copy of the report of the enquiry officer. As I have pointed above, the reply of the Corporation on this point is far from satisfactory. 13. In such circumstance, it must be held that there has been a violation of the provisions of rule 11 of the Rules inasmuch as along with the second show cause notice, the petitioner was not furnished with the report of the enquiry officer. The result, therefore, I is that the order discharging the petitioner from service with immediate effect as communicated by Annexure-6 must be quashed. 14. However, it will be open to the authorities concerned to again if they so desire, serve a second show cause notice upon the petitioner along with a copy of the report of the enquiry officer, which is Annexure A to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf 0f the Corporation which we are satisfied is a true copy of the report as submitted by the enquiry officer and then proceed from the stage, and take action according to law. 15. 15. In the result, the application is allowed and the order discharging the petitioner from service, copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ application, is quashed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Sarwar Ali, J. I agree. Application allowed.