JUDGMENT C. R. Thakur, J.—Shri Chattar Singh who was working as a Reader to the Magistrate 1st Class, Solan, was served with four charges, his explanation was called for and an enquiry was ordered to be held under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The Inquiry Officer found some of the charges established and, therefore, he submitted his report to the disciplinary authority, i. e. Deputy Commissioner, Simla on 15th September, 1972. 2. The Deputy Commissioner issued a show cause notice proposing a penalty of compulsory retirement, vide Annexure B, dated 9-5-1973. Upon this the petitioner made a request vide Annexure C, dated 22nd May, 1972 to permit him to inspect the relevant file and record of the departmental enquiry. The Deputy Commissioner, vide his letter, Annexure D, dated 9th June, 1973 refused inspection of the record. Thereafter the petitioner filed his reply to the show cause notice, but, according to him, since it was a reply without inspection of the record, therefore, he could not file a proper reply and that the refusal to inspect caused him great prejudice in his defence and that the proceedings were therefore vitiated. The Deputy Commissioner vide order, dated 23rd September, Is74 passed the impugned order, Annexure E, retiring him compulsorily from service. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner under the provisions of rule 24 of the aforesaid rules and the copy of the memorandum of appeal is Annexure F. The appellate authority vide his order, dated 10th September, 1976 Annexure G, rejected his appeal making the following observations: "Unfortunately, the Disciplinary Authority could not lay hands on the record that came on the case file during the course of enquiry including the statements of prosecution and defence witnesses as the same is reported to have bean gutted in the fire that broke out in the District Courts, Simla in 1972. But the material contained in the enquiry report was sufficient for the Deputy Commissioner to base his findings in respect of the charges against the delinquent official and coming to a conclusion about the punishment to be awarded. Obviously, therefore, there has been no violation or miscarriage of justice." The further contention of the petitioner was that the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority inflicted penalty of compulsory retirement without reconstructing the complete record which was gutted. Obviously, therefore, there has been no violation or miscarriage of justice." The further contention of the petitioner was that the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority inflicted penalty of compulsory retirement without reconstructing the complete record which was gutted. In the absence of any material before the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority they could not come to any correct conclusion and as such the orders were bad in law. 4. One of the preliminary objections taken by the learned counsel for the State is that there is an appeal pending before the Financial Commissioner and, therefore, this petition was not maintainable. It may be stated that the petitioner had filed an appeal as is averred in para 8 under the provisions of rule 24 of the aforesaid rules to the Divisional Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, Simla, who was the appellate authority in the case of the petitioner and that is further supported by Annexure F appended to the petition. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit that there is not statutory appeal and the so called appeal which has been filed before the Financial Commissioner is not to be treated as an appeal under the rules. On a perusal of the rules it would appear that there is only one right of appeal and which right the petitioner has exhausted and the learned counsel for the respondent who at the initial stage contended that there was a second right of appeal conceded that there was no further right of appeal and that the representation which has been termed as an appeal and which was lying before the Financial Com missioner did not amount to any appeal. Therefore, in these circumstances the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is hereby rejected. 5. Now the only question before this Court is whether the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority had any material before them to satisfy themselves with regard to the correctness and the validity of the report of the Inquiry Officer. It is admitted that the file of the Inquiry Officer which contained the statements of the witnesses, both for the department as also for the delinquent were gutted before the show cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority. It is admitted that the file of the Inquiry Officer which contained the statements of the witnesses, both for the department as also for the delinquent were gutted before the show cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority. This notice was issued in May 1973, whereas the fire had broken out which gutted the building of the Deputy Commissioner in which the record pertaining to the enquiry of the petitioner was also lying, in 1V72 Therefore, this show cause notice also does not appear to be based on any material except the report itself. Under rule 15 after the enquiry is completed the disciplinary authority is to give a show cause notice against the penalty proposed by it in case it agrees with the report or findings of the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner requested the disciplinary authority to permit him to inspect the record before he could file his reply to the show cause notice but the Deputy Commissioner refused the request and obviously on the ground that there existed no record which could be shown to the petitioner and, therefore, without the material before the disciplinary authority it cannot be said that it could come to an independent finding or satisfy itself that the findings as contained in the report were correct on the basis of the material before the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, this show cause notice in the first place cannot be issued in the absence of any record, and secondly it was obligatory for the disciplinary authority to have got the record reconstructed before the show cause notice could be issued so that he could satisfy himself about the correctness or otherwise of the findings of the inquiry Officer. The appellate authority also had no material before it and that is quite obvious from tae order itself which is Annexure G. The actual words have already been quoted in the preceding paragraph of this judgment from para 9 of the petition. Therefore, it is obvious that the appellate authority had also got no material before it in order to satisfy itself that the order of the disciplinary authority was correct. He presumed the report of the Inquiry Officer to be quite correct as it was quite comprehensive and embraced all points connected with the case as well as all evidence led on behalf of the prosecution as well as the defence. He presumed the report of the Inquiry Officer to be quite correct as it was quite comprehensive and embraced all points connected with the case as well as all evidence led on behalf of the prosecution as well as the defence. Whatever the case may be, the record was not either before the disciplinary authority, i. e. the Deputy Commissioner or before the appellate authority and, therefore, merely on the basis of the enquiry report they could not come to any independent finding with regard to the correctness of the report based on material collected by the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, on this short ground the orders of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are both vitiated and cannot be upheld and as such it is an error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore this petition deserves to be accepted. The result, therefore, is that I allow the petition and quash the orders, Annexures E and G which are based on no evidence. The respondent may, however, reconstruct the record and thereafter if they think it necessary, they may consider the report Annexure A. In view of the above the respondents are also saddled with costs of Rs. 2C0/-. Petition allowed.