JUDGMENT Virendra Kumar, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order of removal of services of the Petitioner dated 22-11-90 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 2. Both the sides have been heard and f hey are agreed that the writ petition be disposed of finally. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has assailed the order of removal on the ground that it is in violation of basic principles of natural justice in as muck as the Petitioner was not supplied any copy of the report of departmental inquiry and so he could not avail the opportunity of making any representation before the punishment in question was imposed against him. In this connection learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on a case, Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 . Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration the earlier decisions in this connection, has laid down as below; 18. We make it clear that where ever there has been an inquiry officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires, and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge hereinafter. 4. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties referred to the case of Union of India (UOI) and Ors Vs. E. Bashyan, (1988) 1 JT 627 , in support of his contention that non-supplying the copy of the report of departmental inquiry to the delinquent was not violative of principles of natural justice and/or Article 311 (2) of the constitution of India, it may be mentioned that in Paragraph 17 of the aforesaid Judgment in the case of Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has very clearly laid down as under: Therefore, the conclusion to the contrary reached by any two-judge Bench in this Court will also no longer be taken to be laying down good law, but this shall have prospective application and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this ground. Ramzan Khan (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has very clearly laid down as under: Therefore, the conclusion to the contrary reached by any two-judge Bench in this Court will also no longer be taken to be laying down good law, but this shall have prospective application and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this ground. In the instant case punishment in question was imposed vide order dated 22-11-90. Obviously, this order was passed after pronouncement of this Judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. The result is that the impugned order of removal being violation of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition is' allowed. Impugned order of removal from service dated 22-11-90, contained in Annexure-1, is quashed but it will be open to the Opposite Parties to proceed (afresh) according to law against the Petitioner in case they want to do so.