JUDGMENT H. S. Thakur, J.—The petitioner fin this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 20th November, 1968, of his removal from service, passed by the Settlement Officer, Mandi District, Himachal Pradesh, as also the order passed by the Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh dated 4-12 -1970, who in appeal maintained the said order. The facts of the case, as are relevant to this writ petition, may be stated. 2. According to the petitioner he was appointed as a Patwari, in the Revenue Department, in Mandi district, by the Settlement Officer during the year 1961, and >vas working as such till the time he was removed from service. The petitioner received an order from respondent No. 2 (Settlement Officer, Mandi) dated 5th October, 1966, that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him and that he was placed under suspension. On the same day, charge sheet was also issued to the petitioner, by the said respondent, together with the article of charges and the same were received by the petitioner, on 24th October, 1966. The petitioner made a demand for the supply of certain documents to him. He demoded the copy of the application sent by the public on which the charges had been framed, and the enquiry held on 7-4-1966. The petitioner further stated that unless the aforesaid copies were supplied to him it would not be possible for him to file a reply. A copy of the letter sent by the petitioner is marked as Annexure D’ The Naib Tehsildar, (Settlement) concerned, by a letter dated 6-2-1967 informed the petitioner that the documents demanded by the petitioner did not relate to the charges against the petitioner and as such the copies could not be supplied to him. A copy of this letter has been filed as Annexure E\ It is further stated by the petitioner that by a letter dated 30-4-1967 the charge No. 7, with regard to absence from duty was dropped against him. Shri Nitya Gautam, Settlement Tehsildar, Karsog, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer by respondent No 2, by a letter dated 12-4-1967. The petitioner, however, objected to his appointment as an Enquiry Officer and on that Shri Sher Singh, Extra Assistant Settlement Officer, Mandi, was appointed as such, by a letter dated 6-5-1967. Shri Amar Singh Rathor, Ahlmad, was appointed as presenting officer by an order dated 5-6-1967 who was also replaced by Shri Balak Ram, Reader. The petitioner, however, objected to his appointment as an Enquiry Officer and on that Shri Sher Singh, Extra Assistant Settlement Officer, Mandi, was appointed as such, by a letter dated 6-5-1967. Shri Amar Singh Rathor, Ahlmad, was appointed as presenting officer by an order dated 5-6-1967 who was also replaced by Shri Balak Ram, Reader. It is stated by the petitioner that he made several verbal requests and written demands for the supply of documents to him, so as to enable him to file a reply. Respondent No. 2, however, by a letter dated 15-7-1967 (Annexure M) informed the petitioner that he could examine the original mutation, in the office of the Settlement Naib Tehsildar, Neri Circle. At the same time, the petitioner was informed that some other documents could not be supplied to him as they were not relevant to the enquiry. On further representation having been made by the petitioner for the supply of the copies of documents to him he was informed by respondent Na 2 under a letter dated 23-10-1967 (Annexure Q) that it was possible to give the copies of certain documents to him if he had applied for the same, in time. The petitioner was, however, informed that taking into consideration his necessity, he could inspect the relevant files containing the documents which were kept by an official of the department and that the inspection could be made on or before 4-11-1967. It is, however, contended by the petitioner that he was not allowed the inspection. It is stated by the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 served a show cause notice on him proposing the penalty of dismissal from service. A copy of the same is marked as Annexure T A copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer (Annexure LT) was also sent to the petitioner. The petitioner was ultimately removed from service by respondent No. 2, under the order contained in Annexure JB’ The petitioner has stated that he had replied to the show cause notice on 15-7-1968. A copy of this reply is Annexure W’ The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of removal to the Commissioner Revenue (Respondent No. 3), but the same was rejected on 4-12-1970 (Copy marked Annexure Z). A copy of this reply is Annexure W’ The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of removal to the Commissioner Revenue (Respondent No. 3), but the same was rejected on 4-12-1970 (Copy marked Annexure Z). 3 In the return filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been asserted that the documents relating to the charges were sent to the Settlement Naib Tehsildar, Churag Circle to be supplied to the petitioner and the Naib Tehsiidar handed over the same to the petitioner, on 15-1-1967 It is further submitted that the petitioner was directed to submit the statement of defence within 15 days from the receipt ot these papers. It is averred that the copies of the statements dated 7-4-1966 were not supplied to the petitioner as these statements were recorded by a Kanungo and the preliminary enquiry made by him had been set aside. It is also stated that these statements were not relevant for the regular enquiry. It is also submitted that respondent No. 2 by a letter (Annexure MVT) permitted the petitioner to inspect certain documents and pointed out that other documents would not be relevant as the charge of absence from duty had been dropped. It is averred on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner had participated in the enquiry and the enquiry Officer had heard the arguments on 25-1-1968. It has been repeated by the respondents that the copies of the documents by which the charges were to be proved were supplied to the petitioner through the Settlement Naib Tehstidar, Churag Circle, and the Naib Tehsildar had handed over the same to the petitioner on 15-1-1967. It is also stated that the written statement to the charge sheet as filed by the petitioner had been returned to him by the Naib Tehsildar, to make any changes therein, if he so desired. A copy of the said letter is filed as Annexure R-4 in which the Naib Tehsildar had informed the respondent no. 2 that copies of the documents were handed over to the petitioner and that he could also make necessary changes in his reply, if he so desired. A copy of the letter sent by respondent No. 2 the Settlement Naib Tehsildar dated 21-12-19c6 (Annexure R-2) has been also filed by the respondents. 2 that copies of the documents were handed over to the petitioner and that he could also make necessary changes in his reply, if he so desired. A copy of the letter sent by respondent No. 2 the Settlement Naib Tehsildar dated 21-12-19c6 (Annexure R-2) has been also filed by the respondents. With this letter copies of the statements of 9 of the witnesses as also certain other documents had been sent to be supplied to the petitioner. So far as the copies of the statements dated 7-4-1966 were concerned, the same, according to respondent No. 2, could not be supplied, as the same were not relevant to the charges, against the petitioner. It is also averred on behalf of the respondents that besides the copies of the statements of 9 witnesses, the copies of the statements of 4 more witnesses were also supplied to the petitioner, as desired by him. Ultimately it is contended that the order inflicting ths penalty of removal from service imposed on the petitioner, is proper and valid. 4. It is desirable to reproduce the charges which were framed against the petitioner, as contained in Annexure C\ The same are as under :-— “ 1, Settlement Officer, District Mandi, Sunder Nagar, charge you Durga Dass s/o Narain Singh, Patwari to the following effect":— (1) That you were posted in Nihri Circle and your quarter was in the house of Jindu Ram, resident of Kot. Some days later Smt. Dassi niece of Jindu Ram came to his house as guest, during this period you developed illicit relations with Smt. Dassi. On this Shri Jalam who was the husband complained on the basis of which you were transferred to from Niri Circle to Churag Circle by this office. Being a married Government servant it does not behave you to have such relations with the wives of other persons during the course of your service. (2) In spite of your transfer you did not shift your quarter and from 2 to 3 kilometers you used to come, the sole purpose of which was to have illicit relations with Smt. Dassi. (3) On account of illicit relations with Dassi, you harassed threatened Shri Jindu Ram with the help of Dassi and her sister Bileswaru which has been proved by the neighbored of that village, being a Government servant it is against Conduct Rules. (3) On account of illicit relations with Dassi, you harassed threatened Shri Jindu Ram with the help of Dassi and her sister Bileswaru which has been proved by the neighbored of that village, being a Government servant it is against Conduct Rules. (4) When you were transferred to Garbi Darehat Circle Smt. Dassi was with you at that place, being Government servant you should not have kept the wife of other by taking her. (5) Having good relations with Smt. Dassi and her sister you got the land measuring 5 bighas 14 bis was transferred as sale in the name of your father which you should not have purchased without prior permission in the name of your relative. (6) From the enquiry it has been found that at that time attestation of mutation you appeared on behalf of Shri Narain Singh bendee before the attesting officer from which it appears that you have not purchased the land in the name of your father but you have purchased it for yourself. From the statement of Smt. Bileswaru dated 26th August, 1966 it appears that you never paid any price of the land and you compelled them to make a statement at the time of attestation of mutation from , it appears that you deceived them. (7) That the Field Kanungo concerned at the time of verification of Mohal Manola directed you to correct the mistakes but you did not care for that and most of the time you spent in Takroha, etc. whereas subsequently this was even found in correct. On 21st May, 1966 you were found absent from your duty for that the Naib Tehsildar called your explanation but you never replied It does not behave for you as a Government servant for the acts." 5. Out of the aforesaid charges, the charges at serial No. 3 and 7 were reported to have not been proved against the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has attacked the impugned orders on the following grounds :— (i) That the relevant documents were not supplied to the petitioner as required under the rules. (ii) That the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are not speaking orders and accordingly it can be inferred that there was no application of mind. 7. I shall deal with the first point first. (ii) That the impugned orders passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are not speaking orders and accordingly it can be inferred that there was no application of mind. 7. I shall deal with the first point first. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the documents as desired by the petitioner were not supplied to him, the enquiry was a nullity as also the impugned orders. Reference has been made to certain decisions in this behalf. The decision on which the learned counsel has laid a great emphasis is Mast Ram v. State of H. P. and others [I. L. R. 1974 H. P. 894]. In this judgment reference has been made to rule 14(3) and (4) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and it has been held that the non-compliance of the rules vitiated the enquiry, as the petitioner is denied the effective opportunity to defend himself by not making available to him the list of witnesses and documents and the statements of the witnesses in the preliminary enquiry. The principle laid down in this case cannot be disputed. It is, however, to be determined as to what extent this decision helps the petitioner. It is not necessary to refer to the other decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the petitioner required the documents as indicated in Annexures D and O for his defence. A perusal of these annexures shows that the petitioner did not ask the enquiry officer to summon these documents in his defence. As such, the contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner had summoned these documents in his defence cannot be sustained. I have briefly referred to the respective contentions of the parties, in this behalf earlier above. The essence of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents is that the relevant documents were supplied to the petitioner, and the inspection of other documents had been also allowed to him. The petitioner has contended that no doubt an order allowing him the inspection of documents was passed, but the inspection was refused. This is a disputed question of fact, but in the face of the affidavits filed by respondents No. 4 and other respondents in support of the contents of the return, I have no reason to disbelieve them. The petitioner has contended that no doubt an order allowing him the inspection of documents was passed, but the inspection was refused. This is a disputed question of fact, but in the face of the affidavits filed by respondents No. 4 and other respondents in support of the contents of the return, I have no reason to disbelieve them. As such, I am of the view that the petitioner had been allowed the inspection of such record. Shri L S. Panta, the Deputy Advocate General, has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Krishan Chandra v. Union of India [A. I. R. 1974 S. C. 1589], Para 16 of the said judgment which is relevant for this writ petition, may be reproduced :— "Mr. Hardy next contended that the appellant had really no reasonable opportunity to defend himself and in this connection he invited our attention to some of the points connected with the enquiry with which we have now to deal. It was first contended that inspection of relevant records and copies of documents were not granted to him. The High Court has dealt with this matter and found that there was no substance in the complaint. All that Mr. Hardy was able to point out to us was that the reports received by the Commissioner of Income-tax from his departmental subordinates before the charge-sheet was served on the appellant had not been made available to the appellant. It appears that on complaints being received about his work the Commissioner of Income-tax had asked the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Shri R. N. Srivastava to make a report. He made a report. It is obvious that the appellant was not entitled to a copy of the (report made by Mr. Srivastava or any other officer unless the enquiry officer relied on these reports. It is very necessary for an authority which orders an enquiry to be satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for holding a disciplinary enquiry and, therefore, before he makes up his mind he will either himself investigate or direct his subordinates to investigate in the matter and it is only after he receives the result of these investigations that he can decide as to whether disciplinary action is called for or not. Therefore, these documents of the nature of interdepartmental communications between officers preliminary to the holding of enquiry have really no importance unless the Enquiry Officer wants to rely on them for his conclusions. In that case it would only be right that copies of the same should be given to the delinquent. It is not the case here that either the Enquiry Officer or the Commissioner of Income-tax relied on the report of Shri R. N. Srivastava or any other officer for his finding against the appellant. Therefore, there is no substance in this submission” The learned counsel for the respondents has also drawn my attention to a decision in K. N. Gupta v. Union of India [A. I.R. ;1968 Delhi 85]. Paragraph 6 of the judgment may be extracted for a ready reference:— "I am unable to agree with the contention of Shri Anthony that the decision of the Punjab High Court in Chopras case, 1(1965)1 DLT 407 (Punj)J or the decision of the .Supreme Court in Trilok. Natt’s case [C.A. No. 322 of 1957,0-1-11-1960. (SQ] lays down as a general proposition of law that Government servant concerned is entitled to be furnished with copies of the documents irrespective of the fact whether he had an opportunity to inspect those documents and to take extracts from them or not. A situation like the one in the present case did not come up for consideration either before the Supreme Court in Trilok Naths case or before the Punjab High Court in Chopras case. As I have already mentioned in this case the petitioner was given permission to inspect the documents and to take extracts from them. If the petitioner wanted to take copies of any of the documents made available to him for inspection, there was nothing to prevent him from doing so. It is not the case of the petitioner that he wanted to take copies of those documents and he was prevented from taking copies, but was permitted to take only extracts. It will be too much of a technicality to contend that it will not be sufficient if the petitioner is permitted to inspect the documents and take copies of those documents but the department itself must take copies and furnish those copies to the petitioner. It will be too much of a technicality to contend that it will not be sufficient if the petitioner is permitted to inspect the documents and take copies of those documents but the department itself must take copies and furnish those copies to the petitioner. As far as the facts of this case are concerned, as I pointed out already, the petitioner was given permission to inspect the documents and take extracts there from. The argument of Shri Anthony is that the petitioner has an absolute right to be furnished with copies of the documents by the department and it is not enough if he is permitted to peruse or inspect the documents and allowed to take copies of those documents. I am unable to accept this contention which, in ray opinion, is not supported by any authority. On the other hand, Rule 1711 of the Rules framed by the President of India for the conduct of inquiry into allegations against Railway servants is as follows The Railway servant shall, for the purpose of preparing his defence, be permitted to inspect and take extracts from such official records as he may specify, provided that such permission may be refused if, for reasons to be recorded in writing, in the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority, such-records are not relevant for the purpose or it is against the public interest to allow him access thereto. In this case, the action and the attitude of the department was in accordance with this Rule and it was not the contention of Shri Anthony that this Rule is ultra vires or unconstitutional as offending Article 311 of the Constitution. So long as the department has complied with the requirement of this Rule, I am unable to see how the petitioner can challenge the proceedings unless he challenges the vires of the said Rule. As pointed out by me already, the vires of the Rules itself is not challenged by the petitioner and under these circumstances, I do not see any substance in the first contention of the petitioner. As pointed out by me already, the vires of the Rules itself is not challenged by the petitioner and under these circumstances, I do not see any substance in the first contention of the petitioner. I may further point out that the Punjab High Court in Chopras case [(1965)1 DLT 407 (Punj)] and the Supreme Court in Trilok Naths case, [C.A. No. 322 of 1957 D/-1-11-1960 (SC)] were not considering a case to which a rule like Rule 1711 applied." On the basis of these decisions it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that those documents on which reliance was placed, had been supplied to the petitioner and he was also given reasonable opportunity to substantiate his cause. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was given further time to recast his reply if he so desired. As such, according to the respondents, there has been the compliance of the requisite rules and there is no violation of the principle of natural justice. It is also urged that the petitioner on one pretext or the other had been delaying the enquiry though he was aware about the genuineness of the allegation levelled against him. The respondents also produced the relevant record before me, and I perused the same. As such, I am of the view that there has been a substantial compliance of the rules, as referred to in the aforesaid K. N. Guptas, case. 8. The second point which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders are not speaking orders. Besides other decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision in Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Company v. Union of India and another [AA. R. 1976 S. C 1785] and Bhagat Raja v Union of India [1967 C. L. J. (Delhi) 62.] There is no dispute that an order imposing a penalty, should be a speaking order. It is, however, to be decided whether under the facts of this case the impugned orders can be termed as a speaking orders or not. A perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer (Annexure ‘U) shows that the Enquiry Officer has submitted a detailed report containing as many as 27 pages. In this report all the charges as also the relevant evidence have been reproduced. A perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer (Annexure ‘U) shows that the Enquiry Officer has submitted a detailed report containing as many as 27 pages. In this report all the charges as also the relevant evidence have been reproduced. It is proper that the impugned order Annexure V is reproduced :— Shri Durga Dass, Settlement Patwari, was placed under suspension on 21st October, 1966. An enquiry was conducted against him and after careful consideration of the enquiry report and on agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the articles of charges were found proved. Shri Durga Dass was served with a notice of dismissal from service as he was deemed not a fit person to be retained in service. Shri Durga Dass filed in his written statement against the proposed penalty of dismissal from service and had also requested a personal interview with the Settlement Officer. He was given an opportunity to appear in person before the Settlement Officer on the 31st October, 1968 at Mandi. After careful consideration of the various points raised by the said Patwari in his representation on the penalty proposed vide Memorandum No. MS 2017, dated 28th June, 1968 and also the points made by him in his oral submission. I have come to the conclusion that there is no ground in his written representation or his oral submission which in any way effects the findings of the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, I have come to the conclusion that Shri Durga Dass is not a fit person to be retained in service and a penalty of removal from service is imposed and confirmed on him from the date this order is served upon him” Similarly the order passed by respondent No. 3 on the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment passed by respondent No. 2, is also reproduced, which is contained in Annexure Z’:— "This is an appeal of Shri Durga Dass Patwari directed against the orders of the Settlement Officer dated 20-11-1968. I have gone through the appeal and have taken into consideration the comments received from the Settlement Officer. The record of ^he case has also been examined. From the enquiry file it has been revealed that there were 7 charges against the appellant. I have gone through the appeal and have taken into consideration the comments received from the Settlement Officer. The record of ^he case has also been examined. From the enquiry file it has been revealed that there were 7 charges against the appellant. The enquiry was conducted by the Extra Assistance Settlement Officer and ample opportunity was afforded to the appellant to defend his case before the enquiry officer. Out of 7 charges 5 were fully proved against him and the punishment awarded by the Settlement Officer is in consonance with the charges against the appellant. I do not find any ground to disagree with the order of the Settlement Officer and as such the appeal is rejected. The appellant may be informed accordingly and the record of the case be sent to the Settlement Officer, Mandi." On these facts what is to be determined is whether the aforesaid impugned orders are speaking orders or not. The learned counsel for the respondents has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. A. R. Srinivasan [A. 1 R. 1966 S. C. 1827]. It is pertinent to refer to the relevant observations made in this judgment:— "We are not prepared to accept this argument. In dealing with the question as to whether it is obligatory on the State Government to give reasons in support of the order imposing a penalty on the delinquent officer, we cannot overlook the fact that the disciplinary proceedings against such a delinquent officer begin with an enquiry conducted by an officer appointed in that behalf That enquiry is followed by a report and the Public Service Commission is consulted where necessary. Having regard to the material which is thus made available to the State Government and which is made available to the delinquent officer also, it stems to us somewhat unreasonable to suggest that the State Government must record its reasons why it accepts the findings of the Tribunal. It is conceivable that if the v State Government does not accept the findings of the Tribunal which may be in favour of the delinquent officer and proposes to impose a penalty on the delinquent officer, it should give reasons why it differs from the conclusions of the Tribunal, though even in such a case, it is not necessary that the reasons should be detailed or elaborate. But where the State Government agrees with the findings of the Tribunal which are against the delinquent officer, we do not think as a matter of law, it could be said that the State Government cannot impose the penalty against the delinquent officer in accordance with the findings of the Tribunal unless it gives reasons to show why the said findings were accepted by it. The proceedings are, no doubt, quasi-judicial, but having regard to the manner in which these enquiries are conducted, we do not think an obligation can be imposed on the State Government to record reasons in every case." It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that this judgment has also been relied upon in a decision in Satya Narayan v. State of Rajasthan and others [(1976) 1 S. L. R. 640]. On the basis of these decisions, it is pointed out by the learned counsel that keeping in view the facts of this writ petition, the petitioner can make no grievance that the impugned orders are not speaking orders. I am also of the view that there is no force in the submission made by the learned counsel. No other point was urged. 9. In view of my foregoing discussion, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.