N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition by a Central Government employee who was working as the Divisional Engineer Telegraphs at Bhavnagar at the relevant time and who as per the impugned order Annexure D dated 16-12-78 has been compulsorily retired from service by way of penalty at the conclusion of the departmental proceedings initiated against him in respect of various charges set out at the Chargesheet Annexure A to the petition. The order has been passed by the Deputy Director General by order and in the name of the President of India. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the said order of compulsory retirement. ( 2 ) THERE were levelled against the petitioner as many as eight charges. The eighth charge pertained to his having accepted as a motive or reward for showing favours to two private firms certain things of value set out in clauses (a) (b) and (c) of the charge no. 8 but seven other charges are pertaining to the violation of the Departmental Rules and committing certain gross irregularities alleged to have caused considerable loss to the department. The Enquiry Officer made his report Annexure B at the conclusion of the first stage of the proceedings. Then the second show cause notice was given to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why the major penalty should not be imposed on him. Ultimately the impugned order Annexure D came to be passed. The order was challenged on three grounds. The first ground was that when the charge of accepting illegal gratification from the two firms concerned was not proved the alleged irregularities which were ultimately said to have been committed for the benefit of those two firms could not be sustained. The second contention was that the various witnesses were brought at the time of the enquiry but they were not examined in chief as required under Rule 14. The second contention was that the various witnesses were brought at the time of the enquiry but they were not examined in chief as required under Rule 14. 14 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct Classification and Appeal) Rules 1665 It was alleged that the statements of these witnesses who are the persons from the department itself had come to be recorded by the Chief Vigilance Commissioner in the course of the preliminary enquiry and when the witnesses came to be examined at the time of the departmental enquiry the presenting officer simply asked them whether they had made such statements before the Chief Vigilance Commissioner and on their saying yes they were asked to sign those statements and then they were offered for cross examination. It is the contention of the petitioner in this petition that this nonexamination of the witnesses in chief at the stage of the enquiry vitiated the proceedings. The third contention which in my view is a substantial one is that the report was sent to the disciplinary authority through the Chief Vigilance Commissioner who as per the Government practice is required to tender confidential comments and recommendations for the purpose of giving impartial independent and technical advice to the disciplinary authority in disciplinary cases related to gazetted officers and also advising what penalty should be imposed. The petitioner complained that if the disciplinary authority took this matter into account without affording an opportunity to him to have benefit of what the said Chief Vigilance Commissioner stated he was deprived of the benefit of the principle a audi alteram partem which would go to the root of the impugned order. ( 3 ) I find considerable force in the last of the three points urged on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Ajmera for the petitioner. His grievance in this regard is to be found in paragraphs 7a and 10a of the petition. In paragraph 7a the petitioner has specifically stated as follows:the petitioner has reasonable grounds to believe that the enquiry officer (Commission for Departmental Inquiries) submitted his inquiry report to the Govt. of India through the Chief Vigilance Commissioner. The petitioner has reasonable grounds to believe that the Chief Vigilance Commissioner made his endorsement on the report itself or on a separate paper along with the enquiry report. of India through the Chief Vigilance Commissioner. The petitioner has reasonable grounds to believe that the Chief Vigilance Commissioner made his endorsement on the report itself or on a separate paper along with the enquiry report. The endorsement contained comments or his opinion on the question of the subject matter of the report. It made have also contained his recommendations. These comments or opinion of recommendations were never brought to the notice of the petitioner. He was kept in the dark about it. This amounts to the violation of the principles of natural justice. ( 4 ) THE reply to this averment and to other averments in the petition is filed by the General Manager Telecommunication Gujarat Circle Ashram Road Ahmedabad and in this connection paragraph 8 deserves to be quoted: With reference to para 7-A of the petition I state that the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries submitted his inquiry report to the Central Vigilance Commission and not to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner in accordance with the Government resolution dated 11-2-64 who forwarded the same to the disciplinary authority with his comments and the recommendation that the findings of the Commissioner for departmental enquiries be accepted and a major penalty be imposed on the petitioner. It is however submitted that the comments and recommendations of the Central Vigilance Commission are of confidential nature and the advice is tendered by the Central Vigilance Commission which has been created for giving impartial independent and technical advice to the disciplinary authority in disciplinary cases relating to gazetted officers. Since the disciplinary authority took the decision in the case after considering all the documents and evidence on record mere noncommunication of the advice of the C. V. C. to the petitioner does not constitute violation of the principles of natural justice. ( 5 ) FROM what has been quoted above it is clear that the comments and opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission were taken into account by the disciplinary authority. It cannot do for the department to say that as these comments and opinion and recommendations are confidential in character they are not to be brought to the notice of the delinquent concerned. In judicial or quasijudicial enquiries there is nothing that can be said to be confidential. It cannot do for the department to say that as these comments and opinion and recommendations are confidential in character they are not to be brought to the notice of the delinquent concerned. In judicial or quasijudicial enquiries there is nothing that can be said to be confidential. Any material that is employed against a delinquent to his prejudice has to be brought to his notice so that he may have his own say in that regard. It is well nigh possible that the Central Vigilance Commission might have given its own reasons and expressed strong opinion against the petitioner. It is equally well nigh possible that some other record also might have been made available to the Central Vigilance Commission in the form of earlier confidential records of the employee concerned. The opinion of an august body like the Central Vigilance Commission would obviously carry great weight with the disciplinary authority in reaching a final conclusion. At any rate the possibility of such an influence cannot be negatived. ( 6 ) IN this view of the matter I find that the impugned order Annexure D cannot be allowed to stand. On this short ground I declare that the impugned order Annexure D is bad at law and is inoperative. I however make it clear that it will be open to the disciplinary authority to issue a fresh notice without the enquiry report which is already given but with other additional material if any that the disciplinary authority is likely to take into account while assessing the merits or demerits of the matter. As the impugned order of compulsory retirement stands quashed it follows as a matter of natural corollary that the petitioner will be deemed to be continuing in service. Rule is accordingly made absolute with costs. .