JUDGMENT The order of dismissal dated July 31, 1982, passed by the Divisional Organiser, S.S.B., North Bengal, Division Siliguri, has been impugned in the instant writ petition. 2. This writ petition was earlier transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Branch and by order dated November 19, 1986, the said Tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant proceedings in view of the provision of section 2(a) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, remitted this matter back to this Court, whereupon hearing of this writ petition commenced before me on August 11, 1987. 3. Before passing of the impugned order of dismissal referred to above, in respect of the writ petitioner, Sudhangshu Sekhar Routh, a disciplinary proceeding was however, started against him, in terms of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, on the basis articles of charges dated January 28, 1982, which are to the following affect:- "That the said No. 80399 SI (WT) Sudhangshu Sekhar Routh while functioning as trainee in Radio Technician Course during the period 28.9.81 to 9.11.81 committed disobedience of order/or neglect of duty/remissness in the discharge of his duty/other misconduct or misbehaviour in his capacity as a member of the force under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he applied for repatriation and withdraw from course unauthorisedly and did not complete the course intentionally. That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid Training Centre as Trainee that the said No. 80399 SI (WT) Sudhangshu Sekhar Routh was guilty of disobedience of order/neglect of duty/remissness in the discharge of his duty/other misconduct of misbehaviour in his capacity as a member of the force under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 in that he took his family with him while attending the said course without obtaining prior permission from competent authority in violation of instruction." 4. The petitioner replied to the said charges by his letter dated April 28, 1982, and denied the imputation and also prayed that reasonable opportunity may be given to him, in particular for representation by a lawyer of his choice. 5. The petitioner replied to the said charges by his letter dated April 28, 1982, and denied the imputation and also prayed that reasonable opportunity may be given to him, in particular for representation by a lawyer of his choice. 5. It appears that by order dated June 19, 1982, the Area Organiser, North Bengal Division, S.S.B., Siliguri, has been pleased to communicate the order of rejection of such prayer of the petitioner for engaging a lawyer on his petition dated June 11, 1982, and May 31, 1982, without recording any independent reasons as to why such lawyer may not be given to the petitioner. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under order of suspension by the order dated June 24, 1982, passed by the Commandant, Group Centre, S.S.B. Falakata, which has been passed in exercise of power conferred under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, with immediate effect. 7. After serving the impugned show cause notice dated July 20, 1982, the impugned order of dismissal dated July 31, 1982, was passed by the disciplinary authority, as mentioned above. 8. Mr. Amar Nath Dhole, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner submitted in the first place that the chargesheet was issued with a 'closed mind' and the entire enquiry was conducted without giving any reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner, as the same would be evident from the facts stated hereinabove. 9. He submitted in the second place that as no copy of the enquiry report been submitted to the writ petitioner, the petitioner has not been given reasonable opportunity to make effective reply. 10. Next, he submitted that in any event, the punishment inflicted for the alleged offence committed by the petitioner was disproportionate and order of removal from service was too harsh and it is open for this court to interfere with such order of punishment and set aside the same, if it is found by this court sitting in Writ jurisdiction, that no punishment can be inflicted or lesser punishment should be awarded for ends of justice as the said view has been taken, in the case of (1) Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in AIR 1988 SC 464. 11. 11. In the said case, Supreme Court interfered with the order of dismissal, passed by the disciplinary authority and reversed the findings of the High Court, whereby the Writ petition was dismissed summarily and the appellant was reinstated in service. 12. In the facts of the said case, Supreme Court found that the punishment imposed was disproportionate and directed two increments of the appellant should be with-held and the appellant should be paid 50 % of the salary from the date of termination of service till the date of reinstatement. In this context, I may rely in recent Division Bench judgment of our court consisting of B.C. Basak and Satyabrata Mitra, JJ, (2) Director (Inspection & Quality Control) Export & Import Council of India v. Kalyan K. Mitra and Another reported in 1987 (2) Cal LJ page-344. Wherein Division Bench of this Court, inter alia, hold that by reason of non-supply of copies of the relevant document, the principles of natural justice has been violated and inasmuch as it has been reiterated as a proposition of law that it would be open to the Writ Court to interfere with an order of punishment, inflicted by a disciplinary authority, if it is found to be harsh and severe. 13. Keeping in mind observations of Supreme Court in Bhagat Ram's Case (Supra), as well as the law laid down by the Division Bench, I propose to proceed with the present case. 14. Sardar Amjad Ali learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that as personal allegations made by the writ petitioner in the writ petition, against some officers, particularly against the Inquiring Officer, Mr. N.C. Mondal, who has not been made party in the writ proceedings, cannot be entertained. 15. 14. Sardar Amjad Ali learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that as personal allegations made by the writ petitioner in the writ petition, against some officers, particularly against the Inquiring Officer, Mr. N.C. Mondal, who has not been made party in the writ proceedings, cannot be entertained. 15. He has further drawn my attention to the statements made in paragraph 4 of the affidavit and submitted that all possible opportunities have been given to the writ petitioner to defend the charges, and on this basis of the prayer of the writ petitioner made on April 30, 1982, another chance was given to the writ petitioner and Sri B.S. Negi, Deputy Commandant, Group Centre, Falakata, was appointed as Enquiry Officer, in place of the earlier Enquiry Officer, and as per standi Rule 14(8) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the permission for engaging lawyer, in the departmental enquiry could be granted where the presenting Officer is not a legal practitioner" and as in the instant case the prosecution has not appointed any) presenting Officer as legal practitioner, the question of grant of such legal practitioner, the question of grant of such legal practitioner to the petitioner was not considered by the respondents. 16. Having heard the learned Advocates for both the parties, and having considered the facts stated in the writ petition, I am of the view that by reason of the non-supply of the copies of the enquiry report, the petitioner has been denied of reasonable opportunity, as it is incumbent upon the respondents to supply copy of such report, even in the absence of any statutory provision to that effect, in view of the aforesaid decisions, referred to above. 17. Further, in my view, the penalty of punishment of dismissal is too harsh, in the facts of the present case and, as such, it cannot be sustained in law. 18. In my opinion, the writ petition is entitled to succeed. The order of dismissal is set aside and the petitioner is to be reinstated in service. 19. However, it is ordered that ends of justice will be met, if two increments of the petitioner with future effect is withheld, and the petitioner is paid 50% of the arrear salary from the date of dismissal from service till the date of reinstatement. 20. 19. However, it is ordered that ends of justice will be met, if two increments of the petitioner with future effect is withheld, and the petitioner is paid 50% of the arrear salary from the date of dismissal from service till the date of reinstatement. 20. The respondents will have liberty to act and proceed, with in accordance with law. The Rule is made absolute to the extend indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.