JUDGMENT A. N. Varma, J. 1. THESE two petitions (No. 2787 of 1979-Kotwal Singh Rawat v. Union of India and another) and (No. 2784 of 1979-Rajendra Singh Rawat v. Union of India and another) are being disposed of by a common judgment as the controversies involved therein are identical. 2. INCIDENTALLY the two petitioners are brothers. As a coincidence again, both of them were appointed initially as Tracers in Technical Development Establishment (Instruments) Dehradun. Kotwal Singh was appointed on 24-7-1957, whereas Rajendra Singh Rawat on 22nd July, 1959. Both these petitioners were appointed against the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates. They claimed that as 'Rawats' they belonged to a Scheduled Caste as specified in the Constitution (Scheduled Casts) Order 1950. In support of this claim both the petitioners filed certificates issued by the District Magistrate concerned confirming that the petitioners belonged to a Scheduled Caste called "Rawats". It appears that in the year 1975 the District Administration informed the Director General of Inspection (Arnaments) in the case of Kotwal Singh and the Controller, Controllerate of Inspection (Instruments) Government of India, Raipur, Dehradun that in fact the petitioners were both high class Rajputs and they had gained entry into the service by falsely representing that they belonged to the Scheduled Caste commonly known as 'Rawats' in Uttar Pradesh. This gave rise to initiation of disciplinary action against both the petitioners. Charge-sheets were issued against them by the officer concerned under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. In the charge-sheets served on the petitioners, it was stated that the petitioners were guilty of misconduct or mis-behaviour inasmuch as they gained entry into the service against the quota reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates by falsely representing that they belonged to the community of Scheduled Caste being 'Rawats'. The petitioners were also asked to show cause why they should not be removed from the service. The petitioners there- upon submitted their explanation and led evidence in defence. Their defence was that they were Hindus by religion and Rawats by caste. Both the petitioners gave their statements and they were also questioned by the Inquiry-Officer. On the material collected by the Inquiry-Officer, he submitted his report in February, 1979. The petitioners there- upon submitted their explanation and led evidence in defence. Their defence was that they were Hindus by religion and Rawats by caste. Both the petitioners gave their statements and they were also questioned by the Inquiry-Officer. On the material collected by the Inquiry-Officer, he submitted his report in February, 1979. A true copy of the Inquiry-report incorporating the entire proceedings conducted against the petitioners has been annexed to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, According to the said report, the entire disciplinary inquiry in the case of both the petitioners was concluded in March, 1978. 3. ON the basis of the report of the Inquiry-Officer, the impugned orders have been passed removing both the petitioners from service with immediate effect. The orders stated that on a consideration of the report of the Inquiring Authority as well as the letter issued by the District Magistrate Garhwal, it was clear that the petitioners had gained entry into the service by falsely representing that they belonged to the Scheduled caste commonly known as 'Rawats' in Uttar Pradesh. In fact the petitioners were Rajputs (Kshattriya) by caste and they did not belong to the caste known as 'Rawats.' 4. AGGRIEVED by these orders, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Two contentions have been raised in support of these petitions : (1) Under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 Rawats have been mentioned at Item no. 55, in part-12 of the Scheduled amongst the Castes which are recognized as a Scheduled Caste in Uttar Pradesh. That being so it was not competent to the authorities to go into the question whether the petitioners who were admittedly 'Rawats' belonged to the Caste of 'Rajput Rawats' or the Scheduled Caste known as Rawats in Uttar Pradesh. On the material it was established that the petitioners were Rawats by Caste and consequently they were entitled to be treated as members of a Scheduled Caste and the impugned orders holding to the contrary are ex- facie unsustainable. On the material it was established that the petitioners were Rawats by Caste and consequently they were entitled to be treated as members of a Scheduled Caste and the impugned orders holding to the contrary are ex- facie unsustainable. (2) The Disciplinary Inquiry against the petitioners was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of a letter issued by the District Magistrate on 5-10-1978 after the conclusion of the inquiry, which was neither made available to the petitioners nor were the petitioners made aware of the contents thereof during the inquiry proceedings. That being so the entire proceedings were liable to be quashed on the ground of having been carried out in breach of the principles of natural justice. 5. HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, it does not seem necessary to express any opinion on the first point raised by learned counsel for the petitioners inasmuch as, in our opinion, the petitioners are entitled to succeed on the second point urged on their behalf. 6. A true copy of the letter issued by the District Magistrate has been annexed to the petition. This letter is dated 5-10-1978 and is addressed to the Controller, Ministry Defence (D. G. I.) Controllerate of Inspection (Instruments) Dehradun. In this letter it is stated that from various materials made available to the District Magistrate it is clear that though both the petitioners claimed themselves to be the members of a Schedule Caste called 'Rawat', they are in fact, high class Rajputs (Kshattriyas) and they can not be regarded as belonging to the Schedule Caste. It is further stated that in Uttar Pradesh Rawats are a community of Sweepers. The above letter has been mentioned in the impugned order as well as in the report of the Inquiry-Officer (vide para 19 of the report) and there is no manner of doubt that the same has been made the basis of the order of removal. It is not disputed that in the course of inquiry, or even afterwards this letter was not made available to the petitioners. That being so, it is apparent that the impugned orders were founded on a material of which the petitioners were not aware nor given any opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal there of. 7. It is not disputed that in the course of inquiry, or even afterwards this letter was not made available to the petitioners. That being so, it is apparent that the impugned orders were founded on a material of which the petitioners were not aware nor given any opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal there of. 7. SRI R. S. Dhavan, learned counsel for the respondents however strenuously contended that the petitioners had not suffered any prejudice on account of not having been made aware of the aforesaid letters of the District Magistrate inasmuch as even on the material which was brought on the record it was established beyond doubt that the petitioner were Rajputs by caste and were not members of any Schedule Caste. It was urged that even in the letter of the Additional District Magistrate issued on 22-2-1975, it was clearly stated that the petitioner were Rajputs and were not members of the Schedule Caste known as Rawats. In this view it can not be said that the petitioners have been prejudiced in any way. We find no merit in the above contention. In the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818 , a similar argument was raised but repelled by the Supreme Court. In para 89 of the judgment, the Supreme Court referred to a passage of its judgment in the case of S. L. Kapoor v. Jag Mohan, AIR 1981 SC 136 with approval and the passage reads thus:- "In our view the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependant on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is un-necessary. It (sic) comes from a person who has denied justice that the person who had been denied justice is not prejudiced." From the observations made by the Supreme Court in the two cases mentioned above, it is obvious that prejudice to the petitioners lay in the very fact that the disciplinary authority has acted on a material which was not made available to the petitioners. This decision further lay down that once it is established that principles of natural justice have been violated, it is not necessary further to find out the effect which the violation might have had on the result of the impugned inquiry on merits. The violation of the principles of natural justice per se vitiates the inquiry. The impugned orders are hence liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 8. WE may, however, make it clear that we are expressing no opinion on whether the Rajput- Rawats can be treated as members of Schedule Caste known as Rawats in Uttar Pradesh. In the result both the petitions succeed and allowed. The impugned orders of removal passed against the petitioners are quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to all such benefits which are admissible to them in law consequent upon the orders of removal being quashed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.