JUDGMENT On the submission of the learned Advocates for the parties and also consideration of the basic ground, as are taken in the writ application as also the affidavit-in-opposition, It is appropriate for the Court to hold even though the Rules do not prescribe for the supply of the enquiry report, but for the sake of natural justice which is impliedly embedded in the statutory rules, that the copy of the enquiry report ought to have been furnished to the petitioner. The right of the petitioner to make an appeal, in my view, stands utterly stifled and wholly whittled down by reason of the said non-supply. This can not be permissible. Any order involving civil consequences is required to be passed after strictly and rigorously adhering to the basic concept of "audi alteram portom”. The view that I have taken finds its sustenance from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Punjab v. E.R. Erry & Others, AIR 1973 SC 834 as also the celebrated decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (2) Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 which effectively lays down the principles as regards the civil right and civil consequences. 2. I cannot but hold, although the Rules do not prescribe for the supply of enquiry report, but for the ends of justice and for upholding the rule of law, that the said report should have been furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner stands seriously prejudiced. Reference may be made to the G. I., M H.A. (Dept. of Personnel and A.R., OM. No.11012/18/77-Estt. (A) dated the 2nd September, 1978. the relevant portion of the page is quoted below:- "With reference to Rule 14(19), a question has been raised whether the written brief filed by the Presenting Officer should be made available to the accused Government servant before he files his own brief. The matter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and the position is explained in the succeeding paragraph. It will be seen from the phraseology of Rule 14(19) that the Inquiring Authority has to hear arguments that may be advanced by the parties after their evidence has been closed. But he Can, on his own or on the desire of the parties, take written briefs. It will be seen from the phraseology of Rule 14(19) that the Inquiring Authority has to hear arguments that may be advanced by the parties after their evidence has been closed. But he Can, on his own or on the desire of the parties, take written briefs. In case he exercises the discretion of taking written briefs, it will be but fair that he should first take the brief from the Presenting Officer, supply a copy of the same to the Government servant and take the reply brief from the Government servant. In case the copy of the brief of the Presenting. Officer is not given to the Government servant, it will be like hearing arguments of the Presenting Officer at the back of the Government servant. In this connection, attention is also invited to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of (3) Collector of Customs v. Mohammad Habibul Haque, (1973) 1 SLR 321 (Cal) in which it is laid down that the requirements of Rule, 14(19) of the C.C.S. (C.C.A) Rules. 1965 and the principles of natural justice demand that the delinquent officer should be served with a copy of the written brief filed by the Presenting Officer before he is called upon to file his written brief. " 3. In this connection. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in case of the (4) State of Gujarat v. Teredesai, AIR 1969 SC 1204 and (5) The State of Maharashtra V. E. A. Joshi, AIR 1969 SC 1302 which clearly lay down the effect of the denial or refusal of the supply of enquiry report. 4. Apart from the above, the findings reached by the concerned authority stand at variance with the charge and such being the petitioner. I feel tempted to quote the judgment of this Court to the Case of the Collector of Customs v. Md. Habibul Hoque. 1973 SLR 321 as also the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (6) State of Punjab v. Bakhtawar Singh, 1972 SLR 85. The findings being at variance with the charge, the enquiry proceeding inc1udmg the enquiry report stand set aside. But the charge-sheet is kept alive. Habibul Hoque. 1973 SLR 321 as also the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (6) State of Punjab v. Bakhtawar Singh, 1972 SLR 85. The findings being at variance with the charge, the enquiry proceeding inc1udmg the enquiry report stand set aside. But the charge-sheet is kept alive. The petitioner shall be accorded all service benefits which would have accrued to him had he not been unwarrantedly fastened with the order impugned in the writ application. 5. In view of the foregoing reasons, the application is allowed in part. The respondents shall be at liberty to proceed with the charge-sheet after giving the petitioner all reasonable facilities for his defence and the petitioner shall also be supplied with a copy of the enquiry report. 6. In this connection, it may be mentioned that although the Central Civil Control Appeal Rules, 1965 do not provide for the supply off written brief. Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Singh while speaking for the court in the case of Collector of Customs v. Md. Abdul Hoque(Supra). held that although supply of written brief is not a part of rules, even than then for the ends of justice supply of written brief was required to he furnished to the delinquent in that case. On that ground the order impugned was set aside. 7. Accordingly the writ application, thus, succeeds in part as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. The payment of benefits should be made to the petitioner within four weeks from date.