JUDGMENT Rabindra Nath Dutta, the petitioner in this case, was at the material time employed permanently as a conductor under the North Bengal State Transport Corporation, Cooch Behar (hereinafter referred to as the said Corporation). On the 11th July, 1973 there was a checking of the night out up Service Bus, being Bus No. T/1257 which was proceeding from Siliguri to Jhallang and certain irregularities were detected in the issue of tickets to the passengers in the said Bus. Pursuant thereto, the General Manager of the Corporation issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner dated the 14th August, 1974. It was, inter alia, alleged therein that five passengers had been travelling in the said Bus without tickets from Chalsa to Jhallang and that the petitioner had realised fares from four of the said passengers without issuing any tickets and that another passenger was found travelling in the Bus from Malbazar to Jhallang without ticket. It was alleged that four old and unserviceable tickets were found in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was charged with having attempted to misappropriate money belonging to the Corporation, gross dereliction in duty and violation of rules, and was directed to show cause in writing within ten days of the receipt of charge-sheet as to why severe disciplinary action should not be taken against him. By the same communication the petitioner was placed under suspension. 2. The petitioner replied to the said charges denying his guilt. Subsequently, the Administrative and Personnel Officer of the Corporation was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. By his communication dated the 1st September, 1975 the petitioner objected to the said appointment on the ground that the Enquiry Officer was only a Matriculate, that he had no knowledge of law and that he was friendly with the checking staff. Such objections were overruled and an enquiry was conducted. Evidence was taken at such enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges against the petitioner were proved and he made a report dated the 17th October, 1974, recording his findings. Such objections were overruled and an enquiry was conducted. Evidence was taken at such enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges against the petitioner were proved and he made a report dated the 17th October, 1974, recording his findings. Subsequent thereto, a notice dated the 12th November, 1974 stated to be a "second show cause notice" was issued to the petitioner by the General Manager of the Corporation stating, inter alia, as follows :- "It appears that on 11.7.74 while you were conducting Siliguri-Jhallang N/O. Service Bus (No. T/1257) the Inspecting Staff checked the said Bus on the way and found that (i) you carried 6 (six) unbooked passengers in the bus (ii) realised fares from 4 (four) of the said unbooked passengers, (iii) you kept 4 old and unserviceable tickets with you with an intention to recall them (vide Misc. Case No. 119/74). The aforesaid charges have been well established after proper enquiry and you have been found guilty of the charges. You are directed to show cause as to why you should not be removed from the service of this Corporation or otherwise suitably punished.". 3. In his reply to the second show cause notice the petitioner stated that he had nothing more to add to what he had submitted earlier and requested the General Manager to acquit him from the charges. The General Manager of the Corporation passed an order dated the 28th November, 1974 as follows :- "The charges as levelled against Shri Rabindra Nath Dutta, Conductor (R), NBSTC., Cooch Behar in Misc. Case No. 119/74 have been welt established and he is found guilty of the charges. Therefore, Shri Rabindra Nath Dutta, Conductor (R), NBSTC., Cooch Behar is discharged from the service with immediate effect. He will, however, get subsistence allowances only for the period of his suspension." 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid. The petitioner contends that the proceedings against him were not in accordance with law and that natural justice was denied to him, inter alia, by reason of rejecting his application for appointment of another Enquiry Officer. 5. He will, however, get subsistence allowances only for the period of his suspension." 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid. The petitioner contends that the proceedings against him were not in accordance with law and that natural justice was denied to him, inter alia, by reason of rejecting his application for appointment of another Enquiry Officer. 5. By a subsequent amendment of the pleadings the petitioner has also urged that the disciplinary authority, namely, the General Manager of the respondent No. 1 served the second show cause notice without furnishing any copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner by reason whereof the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself. After the order of discharge was passed under a cover of a letter dated 20th December, 1974, a copy of such enquiry report was made available to the petitioner. 6. The petitioner lastly contends that on the 1st April, 1975 he filed an appeal to the Chairman of the Corporation, namely, the Divisional Commissioner, Jalpaiguri but the same remained undisposed of. 7. The petitioner obtained the present Rule on the 3rd October, 1975 calling Upon the respondents, namely, the North Bengal State Transport Corporation, Cooch Behar; the General Manager of the Corporation; the Administrative and Personnel Officer of the Corporation and the State of West Bengal to show cause why appropriate writs should not be issued directing them to recall, withdraw and to forbear from giving effect to the order dated the 28th November, 1975 discharging the petitioner from his service, to reinstate the petitioner in his service forthwith and for setting aside or quashing the said impugned order. 8. This application is opposed. An affidavit of Rathindra Narayan Roy Chowdhury, the Chief Commercial Inspector of the Corporation affirmed on the 9th July, 1979 has been filed in opposition to the petitioner. It is, inter alia, stated in this affidavit that under the rules of the petitioner's service the petitioner was not entitled to a second show cause notice. It is further stated that from the records, the appeal filed by the petitioner could not be traced. It is contended that the petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause for the second time ex gratia and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further stated that from the records, the appeal filed by the petitioner could not be traced. It is contended that the petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause for the second time ex gratia and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended further that there was also no violation of principles of natural justice in not supplying a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner did not demand for supply of the same and submitted his reply without raising any objection on that ground. 9. The petitioner filed an affidavit affirmed on the 25th July, 1979 in answer to the said affidavit of the Chief Commercial Officer of the Corporation. 10. The learned Advocate for the respondents cited several decisions in support of the contentions of the respondents which are dealt with hereinafter in the chornological order :- (a) (1) The State of Assam & Anr. v. Bimal Kumar Pandit, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1612 . This decision was cited for the following observations of the Supreme Court :- "We do not think that the failure to state expressly that the dismissing authority has accepted the findings recorded in the report against the delinquent officer, justifies the conclusion that the notice given in that behalf does not afford a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent officer under Art. 311 (2)." (b) (2) Malikram v. Hindusthan Cables Ltd. & Ors., reported in 1968(2) L.L.J. 871. It was held in that case that an employee of Hindusthan Cable Ltd. was not entitled to previlages conferred on civil servants under Article 311 of the Constitution. (c) (3) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Omprokash Gupta, reported in AIR 1970 SC 679 . This decision was cited for the following observations by the Supreme Court :- "The High Court was not right in its conclusion that the report of the Enquiry Officer had not been made available to the respondent before he was called upon to show cause against the proposed punishment. A summary of that report had been given to him when he asked for it for the purpose of submitting a memorial to the Government against the order made in 1974 dismissing him from service. A summary of that report had been given to him when he asked for it for the purpose of submitting a memorial to the Government against the order made in 1974 dismissing him from service. It is not shown that the summary did not contain all the relevant facts and circumstances taken into consideration as well as the conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer and the recommendations made by him. The entire records of the enquiry were before the Courts in proceedings commenced by the respondents in 1948 and quite clearly it would have included in the report of the Enquiry Officer. Further it was open to the respondent to ask for a copy of that report when he was asked in 1949 to show cause against the proposal to dismiss him. He did not do so nor did he object to the notice calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed, on the ground that he had not been supplied with a copy of the report made by the Enquiry Officer." 11. Learned Advocate also drew my attention to the relevant regulation, being Regulation No. 41 of the North Bengal State Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulations which provides as follows :- "No order of dismissal, removal or reduction shall be passed on an employee of the Corporation (other than an order based on facts which had led to his conviction in a Criminal Court) unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action, and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. He shall be required, within reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires or if the authority concerned so directs an oral inquiry shall be held. He shall be required, within reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires or if the authority concerned so directs an oral inquiry shall be held. At that inquiry oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted, and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses to give evidence in person and to have such witness called, as he may wish, provided that the officer conducting the inquiry may, for special and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and a statement of the findings and the grounds thereof; Provided that this regulation shall not apply where the employee concerned has absconded or where it is for other reasons impracticable to communicate with him and all or any of the provisions of this regulation may, in exceptional cases, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, to be waived, where there is difficulty in observing exactly the requirements of this regulation and those requirements can be waived without injustice to the person charged." 12. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended on the other hand that Regulation 41 implied that the petitioner must be served with second show cause. He submitted that the said Regulation 41 was in pari materia with section 240 (3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 which reads as follows :- "No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him : Provided that this sub-section shall not apply (a) Where a person is dismissed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) Where an authority empowered to dismiss a person or reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to give to that person an opportunity of showing cause." 13. The said section of the Government of India Act was considered by the Privy Council in (4) High Commissioner for India and High Commissioner for Pakistan v. J. M. Lall, reported in 75 IA 225. Construing the said section it was held by the Judicial Committee as follows:- "In the opinion of their Lordships, no action is proposed within the meaning of the sub-section until a definite conclusion has been come to on the charges, and the actual punishment to follow is provisionally determined on. Before that state, the charges are unproved and the suggested punishments are merely hypothetical. It is on that state being reached that the statute gives the Civil Servant the opportunity for which sub-section 3 makes provision. Their Lordships would only add that they see no difficulty in the statutory opportunity being reasonably afforded at more than one stage. If the Civil Servant has been through an enquiry under Rule 55, it would not be reasonable that he should ask for a repetition of that stage, if duly carried out, but that would not exhaust his statutory right, and he would still be entitled to represent against the punishment proposed as the result of the findings of the inquiry". 14. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted further that it was mandatory on the disciplinary authority to make available to the petitioner a copy of the enquiry report along with the said second show cause notice and the failure to furnish the same in the instant case amounted to a violation of principles of natural justice. In support of such contention the following decisions were cited :- (a) (5) The State of Gujarat v. R. G. Teredesai and Anr., reported in AIR 1969 SC 1294 . In this case the Supreme Court observed as follows :- "The entire object of supplying a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer is to enable the delinquent officer to satisfy the punishing authority that he is innocent of the charges framed against him and that even if the charges are held to have been proved the punishment proposed to be inflicted is unduly severe. If the Enquiry Officer has also made recommendations in the matter of punishment that is likely to affect the mind of the punishing authority even with regard to penalty or punishment to be imposed on such officer. If the Enquiry Officer has also made recommendations in the matter of punishment that is likely to affect the mind of the punishing authority even with regard to penalty or punishment to be imposed on such officer. The requirement of a reasonable opportunity, therefore, would not be satisfied unless the entire report of the Enquiry Officer including his views in the matter of punishment are disclosed to the delinquent servant." (b) (6) Muvvala Narasimha Rao v. Works Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vijayawada and Others, reported in 1972 Lab. I. C. 1215. In this case the Andhra Pradesh High Court laid down the following proposition:- "It is also easy to see that the principles of natural justice also require furnishing of a copy of the report to the person charged. Without its aid, he cannot show cause against the proposed penalty.... It is thus clear that the failure on the part of the punishing authority to furnish the appellant with copies of enquiry report and answers to interrogatories resulted in violation of the rules and the principles of natural justice." (c) (7) Uttar Pradesh Government v. Sabir Hussain, reported in 1975 (4) SC 703. In this case, the respondent who was an employee of the Government of Uttar Pradesh filed a suit claiming a declaration that the respective orders of suspension and removal from service passed against him were illegal and ultra vires and contrary to his service rules. It was found as a fact that no copy of the report or findings or comments of the Enquiry Officer was supplied to the employee. Even when the employee applied for the same for the purpose of filing his appeal he was told that apart from the order of punishment he was entitled to no other documents. On the facts, the Supreme Court held that the employee was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him and that non-supply of the copies of material documents had caused serious prejudice to him in making a proper representation. 15. In view of the decision of the Privy Council in the case of J. M. Lal (supra), I hold that under Regulation 41 the petitioner was entitled as of right to be given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment. 15. In view of the decision of the Privy Council in the case of J. M. Lal (supra), I hold that under Regulation 41 the petitioner was entitled as of right to be given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment. I further hold that it was not possible for the petitioner to make an effective representation against the proposed punishment without knowing the findings at the enquiry. The fact that the petitioner did not ask for a copy of the enquiry report is of little consequence as at no time the petitioner was informed that the Enquiry Officer had come to any decision or had made any report in writing. There is no mention of the report of the enquiry in the second show cause notice. Without knowing about the same the petitioner could not have asked for a copy of the enquiry report at that stage. The Principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Omprakash Gupta (supra) in my opinion has no application in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In the case before the Supreme Court the Government servant concerned was given a summary of the enquiry report containing all the materials and conclusions and the delinquent was satisfied with the same. This was not so in the instant case, and as already noted, the petitioner was not even informed of the existence of the enquiry report. 16. For the reasons above the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this application. A Writ in the nature of Certiorari will issue setting aside the impugned order of discharge dated the 28th November, 1974. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus will also issue directing the respondents not to give any or further effect to the said order. The respondents will, however, be at liberty to proceed with the said disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner from the stage of the enquiry report. The respondents will also be at liberty to issue a fresh order of suspension against the petitioner in accordance with rules. The respondents are directed to continue and complete the proceedings expeditiously and in accordance with law. The Rule is made absolute to the extent as aforesaid. There will be no order as to costs.