M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions arise out of a joint disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioners, who were Head Constables in the Police department in the District of Coorg. ( 2 ) AS common questions of law and fact arise for consideration, they are being disposed of by this common order. ( 3 ) BY order dt. 12. 8. 1975 (Ex.-D in W. P. 1546/77) of the Superintendent of Police, a joint diepartmental inquiry was instituted against the two head constables and another constable. The charges framed against them were as follows: (I) Charges against the petitioner in W. P. 1546/77: (1) Gross neglect of duty in allowing car MYM 8670 illegally carrying 560 Kgs of boiled rice to go towards kerala through Thokkotu Food Check post on 28. 2. 1975 without checking the same. (2) Gross neglect of duty in allowing car No MYM 8670 and car MYG 5041 to pass through the Food Check post without checking. (3) Neglect of duty in failing to report the non-checking of cars MYM 8670 and MYG 5041 and their passing through the Thokkotu Check Post at 8-30 P. M. on 28. 2. 1975 without checking. (ii) Charges against the petitioner in W. P. 1611/77: (1) Gross neglect of duty in allowing car MYM 8670 illegally carrying without authority 560 Kgs of boiled rice to go towards Kerala through thokkotu Check Post on 28. 2. 75 without checking same. (2) Gross neglect of duty in allowing car No. MYM 8670 and car MYC 5041 to pass through the Thokkotu food Check Post without checking' on 28. 2. 1975. (3) Gross misconduct in tampering with the general diary of the Food check Post Thokkotu dt. 28. 2. 75, an official record. (4) Gross misconduct in tampering with the T. G. R. of Food Check Post thokkotu dt. 28. 2. 75 an official record. ( 4 ) THE Superintendent of Police, who is the disciplinary authority, himself held the inquiry. After the conclusion of the inquiry, he recorded a finding that the charges levelled against the petitioners were proved and by his two separate final orders dt. 9. 4. 1976 (Annexure-A in W. P. 1546/- 77 and Annexure-L in W. P. 161. 1/77) he imposed the penalty of dismissal from, service against both the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have presented these writ petitions. 9. 4. 1976 (Annexure-A in W. P. 1546/- 77 and Annexure-L in W. P. 161. 1/77) he imposed the penalty of dismissal from, service against both the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have presented these writ petitions. ( 5 ) THOUGH several contentions arc raised in the petitions, it is unnecessary to refer to all of them as the petitioners are entitled to succeed on the short ground that copies of the preliminary inquiry report on the basis of which the charges were framed against the petitioners were not furnished to them though asked for by the petitioners for the purpose of cross-examination. ( 6 ) AT this stage, it is relevant to set out that part of the charge memo in which the list of witnesses and documents on the basis of which the charges framed against the petitioners were proposed to be proved were set out and the concluding part of the charge memo. That part of the charge memo dt. 12. 8. 1975 served on the petitioner in W. P. 1546/77 (Ex-C) reads. It is proposed to hold a dept. enqy. against you. The following are some of the witnesses proposed to be examined in this connection. , others may also be examined as found necessary. 1) Sri. C. A. Ramappa, S. I of police, C. B. II C. I. D. Food Cell, mangalore, (2) H. C. 624 M -. Koraga Naik of C. B. II C. I. D Food Cell, Mangalore. 3) Sri Rama Poojary, son of aithappa Poojari driver of Car myg 5041 of Kudupi, Mangalore. The following are some of the documents it is proposed to be produced in this connection. Others may also been produced as found necessary. 1. S. H. D. of Thokkotu Check post for 28. 2. 75. 2. T. G. R. of Thokkotu Check post for 28. 2. 1975. Please show cause why suitable disciplinary action should not be taken against you on the charges mentioned above. You are required herewith to put in any written statement, you may desire to submit in your defence within 7 days from the date of receipt of this charge memo. You mav state whether you desire any enquiry to be held. Please specify the witnesses you desire to cross examine and witnesses you desire to examine in your etc fence. You are required herewith to put in any written statement, you may desire to submit in your defence within 7 days from the date of receipt of this charge memo. You mav state whether you desire any enquiry to be held. Please specify the witnesses you desire to cross examine and witnesses you desire to examine in your etc fence. Your attention is drawn in this connection to rule 6 r/w rule 8 of the k. S. P. (D. P) Rules 1965. In case you fail to put in your written statement within the above stipulated time, 'the undersigned will proceed with' the enquiry on the basis that you have no defence to offer. You are permitted to take copies of statements of witnesses and documents cited above". (Underlined) itllcs by me ). The charge memo served on the other petitioner was similarly worded. From the above portion of the article of charges, it may be seen that three witnesses were sought to be examined in support of the charges and two documents were sought to be relied on. The last sentence (underlined italics by me) also specifically stated that the petitioners were permitted to take copies of statements of witnesses and documents cited above. After the charge memo wae served, the petitioner in W. P. No. 1546/77 made a request for supply of certain documents. The said representation (Ex-F)reads "from p. Bhargava, H. C. 375, p. I. E. Mangalore to the Sopies of statements of witnesses and documents cited above. After the charge memo wae served, the petitioner in W. P. No. 1546/77 made a request for supply of certain documents. The said representation (Ex-F)reads "from p. Bhargava, H. C. 375, p. I. E. Mangalore to the Sopies of statements of witnesses and documents cited above. After the charge memo wae served, the petitioner in W. P. No. 1546/77 made a request for supply of certain documents. The said representation (Ex-F)reads "from p. Bhargava, H. C. 375, p. I. E. Mangalore to the Superintendent of Police, s. K. Mangalore. Sir, sub: Departmental Enquiry. Ref: P. R, 75/75 dated 12. 8. 75. I beg to submit that I may kindly be permitted to prove and take notes of the documents mentioned in the charge memo. The said representation (Ex-F)reads "from p. Bhargava, H. C. 375, p. I. E. Mangalore to the Superintendent of Police, s. K. Mangalore. Sir, sub: Departmental Enquiry. Ref: P. R, 75/75 dated 12. 8. 75. I beg to submit that I may kindly be permitted to prove and take notes of the documents mentioned in the charge memo. Farther I submit that the following records may kindly be made available to me for persual and lake notes in order to enable me to submit my defence statement. These records may kindly be kept in this d. E. files to enable me to have them during the cross-exam, of the witnesses cited in the charge-memo 1. Report of S. I. Sri Ramappa dt. 28. 2. 75 sent to the S. H. O. Ullal. 2. Yadast prepared by S. I. Sri ramappa dt. 28. 2. 75 above the Rice etc. , 3. S. H. D. of Talapady Check Post for 28. 2. 75. 4. T. G. R. of Talapady Check post for 28. 2. 75. 5. Case Diary File in Ullal Crime no. 64/75 containing the F. I. R. 162 statements of all the witnesses questioned during the investigation by the s. H. O. Ullal to know the present stage of the case. 6. S. H. D. of Ullal Station for 28. 2. 75. 7. Vehicle movement register maintained at Commercial Tax check Post at Thokkotu dt. 28. 2. 75 8. Statements of witnesses and delinquents recorded by the Inspector of Police, Mangalore Rural during his preliminary enquiry. 9. Preliminary enquiry report of the Inspector, Mangalore Rural Circle submitted in this connection. 10. Note Books of S. I. Sri ramappa and H. C. 624 Korga naik for 28. 2. 75. 11. Registration Certificate of Car myg 5041 along with the permit of the said vehicles. 12. Driving Licence of Rama poojary witness No. 3. 13. Superior Officers' visiting book of Thokkotu and Talapady check Posts for 28. 2. 75 14. Special report of the S. I. of police Ullal dt. 1. 3. 1975 in this connection. 15. Log Book of Police Jeep No. Subbanna Alva DYSP, Mangalore. 16. G. V. R. of Taxi MYG 5041. 17. Note Book of S. I. Ullal for 28. 2. 75. Yours faithfully sd/ ullal, 15. 8. 75. (Underlined italics by me ). Similarly the petitioner in W. P. No. 1611/77 made a request (vide Ex. 3. 1975 in this connection. 15. Log Book of Police Jeep No. Subbanna Alva DYSP, Mangalore. 16. G. V. R. of Taxi MYG 5041. 17. Note Book of S. I. Ullal for 28. 2. 75. Yours faithfully sd/ ullal, 15. 8. 75. (Underlined italics by me ). Similarly the petitioner in W. P. No. 1611/77 made a request (vide Ex. F in that petition) for supply, of certau documents. The reply dt. ' 18. 8. 1975 given to the petitioner in W. P. No. 1546/77 (Ex.-G) reads thus:"p. R. 75/75 Office of the Supdt. of Police, S. K. Mangalore, dt: 18th Aug. 75. Sub: D. E. against H. C. 375 P. Bhargava of Tllal P. S. under suspension. Ref: Representation 15. 3. 75. of H. C. 375 P. Bhargava (Under Suspension) with ref. to the representation cited, H. C. 375, P. Bhargava of Ullal P. S. (under suspension), is informed that the documents requested for in his representations cited are not available in this office and, are irrelevant to the charge against him. He is also informed that he has already been permitted to peruse the documents cited in the charge memo vide this office charge memo p. R. 75/75 dated 12. 8. 75. Sd/-Supdt. of Police S. K. " (Underlined italics by me) the reply dt. 18. 8. 1975 given to the petitioner in W. P. No. 1611/77 (Ex-G) was in similar terms. ( 7 ) FROM the representations given by the petitioners, it is clear that. among the various documents asked for they specifically requested for the supply of copies of the preliminary inquiry report of the Inspector of Police, mangalore Circle, submitted by him, on the basis of which the inquiry was instituted and requested the disciplinary authority to keep it ready for being used by the petitioners for cross-examination. But the request was flatly rejected stating that some of the documents sought for were not available and others were not relevant to the charge framed against the petitioners. ( 8 ) IN the course of the inquiry, it so happened, the evidence given, by one of the material witness, namely, rama Poojary, was not helpful for proving the charge against the petitioners. It reads. The deposition shows that he did not support the Charge in material particulars and hence the inquiring authority cross-examined him and even put a leading question. It reads. The deposition shows that he did not support the Charge in material particulars and hence the inquiring authority cross-examined him and even put a leading question. Therefore the disciplinary inquiring authority found it necessary to examine the inspector of Police Sri D. V. Naik, who had conducted and submitted the preliminary inquiry report, though he was not cited as one of the witnesses in the charge memo. The deposition of said witness reads as follows:"i am working as C. I. Mangalore rural Circle since 11. 11. 74, S. P. S. K. in his memo No. EST 3/113/75-76 dt. 22. 4. 75 directed me to conduct a preliminary enquiry against HC 375 bhargava and PC 1078 Ayyanna. I recorded the satatement of S. I. Ramappa of Food Cell, HC 624 koraga Naik of Food Cell Mangalore and Rama Poojary S/o Aithappa poojary, Taxi Driver and others and also took into possession the General diary of Thokkotu Food Check post for 28. 2. 75 containing 3 sheets and t. G. R. of Thokkotu "check post dt. 28. 2,75 written up pages 1 to 11 with blank pages from 12 to 28. [ produce the statement of Rama Poojary driver of T. Taxi MYG 5041 which was recorded by me on 1. 7. 75 The statement was translated into kannada and read over to him and hat been signed by him in Kannada as rama Poojary. The statement: is marked as Ex. P. III. I sent my report to S. P. S. K. 4. 7. 75 along with the T. G. R. of Thokkotu F. C. P. dt. 28. 2. 75 containing some written and some unwritten pages, as states above and the General Diary of f. C. P. for 28. 2. 75 as stated above. The G. D. was produced bv the Sub- inspector and also the T. G. R. of thokkotu F. C. P. Cross Examination by H. C. 375 bhargava (under suspension) i do not remember to have gone towards Talapady on 28. 2. 75 at about 6 P. M. along with D. S. P. Man galore. Cross examinantion by P. C 1078 ayyanna (Under suspension) Nil cross-Examination by H. C. 331 K. Seetharama (under suspension) nil". The relevant portion of the report of the inquiring authority concerning the petitioner 'in W. P. 1516 of 1977 which indicates that reliance was placed on the evidence of Inspector of. Cross examinantion by P. C 1078 ayyanna (Under suspension) Nil cross-Examination by H. C. 331 K. Seetharama (under suspension) nil". The relevant portion of the report of the inquiring authority concerning the petitioner 'in W. P. 1516 of 1977 which indicates that reliance was placed on the evidence of Inspector of. Police reads as follows: "p. W. 6 Sri. D. V. Naik, C. I. Mangalore Rural stated that in memo No. Est/1131/75-76 di22. 4. 75 he was directed to conduct preliminary enquiry against A. G. O. 2 HC 375 and A. G. O. 3 P. C. 1075. He recorded the statements of P. W 1 s. I. Ramappa. H. C. 624 and rama Poojary taxi driver and others and also took into possession the general diary of Thokkotu food cheek post for 28. 2. 75 containing 3 sheets and T. G. R. of Thokkotu check post d/ 28. 2. 75 written upto pages 1 to 11. with blank pages from 12 to 28. He produced the statement of Rama poojary driver of tourist taxi MYG 5041, which was recorded by him on 1. 7. 75 He added that the statement was translated into Kannada and read over to him and was signed by him in Kannada as Rama Poojary. The statement was marked as Ex. P. III. He further stated that he sent his report to Supdt. Of police S. K. d14. 7. 75 along with the t. G. R. of Thokkotu Food Check post d 218. 2. 75 containing some written and some unwritten pages as stated above and the general diary of Food Check Post for 28. 2. 75. On cross examination by A. G. O. 2 H. C. 375 the; witness stated that he does not remember to have gone towards Talapady on 28. 2. 75 at about 6 P. M. along with D. S. P. Mangalore as far as the evidence of P. W 3 is concerned, it is unbelievable in the face of over whelming evidence the, contrary provided by the evidence of P. W s 1,2. 4 and 6. Ex. 2. 75 at about 6 P. M. along with D. S. P. Mangalore as far as the evidence of P. W 3 is concerned, it is unbelievable in the face of over whelming evidence the, contrary provided by the evidence of P. W s 1,2. 4 and 6. Ex. P8 is the statement of which was recorded by P. W. 6 and was translated into kannada read over to him and signed by him and P. W. 3 himself has admitted in the course of the D. E. that bis statement was recorded by a Police officer andl was read over to him after translating the same into Kannada and he signed it as ho knows kannada and found it written correctly. Now this witness has contradicted his previous statement which he has admitted durin the course of the D. E. tn have been correctly recorded and signed bv him. Thus it is clear that this witness'is unreliable and untruthful as he goes on changing his statement and hence his evidence carnot bo relied; upon. Thus it is proved beyond doubt as discussed above that A. G. O. 1 was on duty in Thokkotu Food Check post when car No. MYM 8670 carrying 560 Kgs of boiled rice passed through the check post. Relevant portion of the inquiry report in respect of the petitioner in w. P. No. 1611 of 1977 reads ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the i'act that the Inspector who is the author of the preliminary inquiry report, was examined as a witness and reliance has been placed on his evidence to come to the conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioners were proved, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it was obligatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to have furnished to them the copies of the preliminary inquiry report for purposes of an effective cross-examination of the Inspector and as the same was not supplied, the inquiry proceedings were vitiated and the final orders passed in the said inquiry were liable to be set aside. ( 10 ) THE contention urged for the petitioners receives support from the decision of the Supreme Court in state of UP. v. Chintaman (1) Relevant portions of the Judgment read: -"mr. ( 10 ) THE contention urged for the petitioners receives support from the decision of the Supreme Court in state of UP. v. Chintaman (1) Relevant portions of the Judgment read: -"mr. Khaskalam has strenuously contended before us that in not supplying the copies of the documents asked for by the respondent the enquiry officer was merely exercising his discretion and as such it was not open to the High Court to consider the: propriety or the validity of his decision. In support of this argument he has referred us to the decision of the Patna High Court in Dr. Tribhuwan Nath v. State of Bihar, AIR 1960 Pat 116 . In that case the public officer wanted to have a copy of the report made by the anti-corruption department as a result of a confidential enquiry made by it against the said officer; and the enquiry officer had rejected his prayer. When it was urged before the High Court that the failure to supply the copy of the said report constituted a serious infirmity in the enquiry and amounted there by to a denial of a reasonable opportunity to the public officer, the High Court repelled the argument, and held that the officer was not entitled to a copy of the report unless that report formed part of the evidence before the Enquiry commissioner and was relied upon, by him. "when, however, the report was not at all exhibited in the case, nor was it referred to, nor relied upon by the Commissioner", said the High Court, "there was. no meaning in contesting it, and consequently absence of opportunity to meet its contents involved no violation of constitutional provisions". In our opinion, this decision cannot assist the appellant's case because, as we have already Pointed out, the documents which the respondent wanted in the present case were relevant and would have been of invaluable assistance to him in making his defence and cross-examining the witnesses who gave evidence against him. In our opinion, this decision cannot assist the appellant's case because, as we have already Pointed out, the documents which the respondent wanted in the present case were relevant and would have been of invaluable assistance to him in making his defence and cross-examining the witnesses who gave evidence against him. It is hardly necessary to emphasise that the right to cross-examine the witnesses who give evidence against him is a very valuable right, and if it appears that effective exercise of this right has been prevented by the enquiry officer by not giving to the officer relevant documents to which he is entitled, that inevitably would be that the enquiry had not been held in accordance with rules of natural justice. The ratio of that decision was applied by a Division Bench of this Court in B. J. Kulkarni v. State of Mysore, (2) The ratio of these decisions is that if the preliminary inquiry report is required for cross-examination by the concerned delinquent officials, it must be furnished and failure to do so would amount to denial of reasoryable opportunity to defend, which is guaranteed to them under Art. 31 (2) of the Constitution. The decision of the Supreme Court in State of up. v. Mohd. Shariff (3) reiterates this position. ( 11 ) SRI S. V. Narasimhan, Learned high Court Government Pleader, relied on the judgment of the Supreme court in Krishna Chandra v. Union of india (4 ). The relevant portion of the judgment reads- it appears that on complaints, being received about his work the Commissioner of Incon tax had asked the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Sri R. N. Sri- vastava 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. Sri vastava 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 prim; 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 inter-departmental 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 reliedi 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. In view of the above judgment, learned High Court Government Pleader, submitted that non-furnishing of the copy of the preliminary enquiry report could not be regarded as having vitiated the disciplinary proceedings. ( 12 ) IN my opinion the contention urged for the petitioners is sound. (I) If the author of the preliminary enquiry report was not at all examined as a witness or the| preliminary enquiry report was not relied on in the enquiry, then the learned High court Government Pleader would be right in saying that the denial of copy of the preliminary enquiry report cannot be regarded as having vitiated the enquiry proceedings and the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishna chandra's Case (4) fully supports his submission. (ii) The ratio of the decision in chintaman's (1) case is that even though the preliminary enquiry report is not relied on by the prosecution, still if it is required for effective cross- examination by the delinquent it must be furnished. The question is, can it be said that in the present case it was required for effective cross-examination? As pointed out earlier, the officer, who submitted the preliminary enquiry report, was examined as a witness in this case. Further it is significant that though he was not cited as a witness in the charge memo, his evidence was considered necessary as one of the witnesses Rama Poojary who is stated to have made a statement in the preliminary enquiry in support of the chrage, resiled from that statement in his deposition in the enquiry and the Inspector was examined to prove the statement of Rama Poojary recorded before him. The report of the enquiry also discloses that the evidence of the Inspector was relied on in recording the finding against the petioners. The report of the enquiry also discloses that the evidence of the Inspector was relied on in recording the finding against the petioners. An effective cross-examination of the Inspector, D. V. Naik, by the petitioners was not possible without their having been given the preliminary enquiry report. Though the petitioners had specifically requested that the same be kept ready and made available for purposes of cross-examination, the request was rejected. This is a circumstance which vitiates the enquiry proceedings as it amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to defend themselves and, therefore, violative of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. (iii) For these reasons, the contention urged! for the petitioners has to be upheld. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, however, has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of revision petition under S. 25 (2) of the Karnataka Police act. ( 14 ) IT is true that the petitioners could have preferred a revision petition before the Government under that section, but this Court in the case of l. B. Shirugu'ppi v. DY. Supdt. of police, (5) has held that a revision was not like an appeal, a substantive remedy and, therefore, non presentation of a revision petition to the Government was no bar to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 15 ) IN the circumstances of the case and in particular as the defect pointed out for the petitioners goes to the root of the matter, I do not think that there is any justification to ask the petitioners to prefer revision petition andi that too at this distance of time i. e. , after five years, during which period the petitions have been pending before this court. ( 16 ) IN the circumstances, I make the following order: (i) Rule made absolute. (ii) The impugned orders dated 9. 4. 1976 (Annexure-A in W. P. 154 (5 of 1977 and Annexure-L in W. P. 1611/1977) are quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. (iii) No costs. --- *** --- .