ORDER M.P. Singh, J. - The petitioner was initially appointed as Patwari. He was promoted as Supervisor Qanoongo in 1981. 2. The writ petition is directed against an order dated 24-10-1986 passed by the District Magistrate, Pithoragarh awarding the following four punishments to the petitioner (i) reduction in rank to the post of Patwari, (ii) withholding of three increments, (iii) awarding adverse entry, (iv) withholding of arrears of salary, allowance etc. during suspension period and the order of the Commissioner dated 10-11-1987 dismissing his appeal. 3. One Shrinath Singh made an application before Pargana Adhikari. Lohaghat on 29-11-1982 for felling and lifting certain trees. He directed the petitioner to submit his report. 4. On 4/12-I1-1982 the petitioner submitted his report recommending that 43 trees uprooted in storm or cut for road construction may be disposed of by means of public auction. 5. Under the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, public auction was held on 29-11-1982. Srinath Singh was the highest bidder for these trees. On 4-12-1982 the bid was accepted by the Pargana Adhikari. Vide his order dated 6-12-1982 he permitted Shrinath Singh to lift the trees and directed the Patwari concerned to arrange for the lifting. 6. In pursuance of the order of the Pargana Adhikari dated 6-12-1982 the petitioner issued the slip on 1-1-1983 for lifting the said trees. 7. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition it has been stated that the said trees have not been lifted till this date. They are still lying on the spot. This fact has not been denied by the State. Thus it stands admitted that the trees have not been lifted as yet by Shrinath Singh though he has deposited the entire amount of auction money on 18-1-1983, in pursuance of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, by means of a Treasury Challan. 8. There is some controversy about the date of order of the Sub-Divisional Officer permitting Shrinath Singh to lift the trees. According to the petitioner it was 6-12-1982 whereas according to the other side it was 19-1-1983. The admitted position is that there was an order of Sub-Divisional Officer for lifting of those 43 trees. Since the trees are still in the possession of State Government, the said controversy is not very material. 9. It appears that on an anonymous complaint of some interested person, the Tehsildar submitted a report to the Pargana Adhikari against the petitioner. The admitted position is that there was an order of Sub-Divisional Officer for lifting of those 43 trees. Since the trees are still in the possession of State Government, the said controversy is not very material. 9. It appears that on an anonymous complaint of some interested person, the Tehsildar submitted a report to the Pargana Adhikari against the petitioner. This was done without any notice to the petitioner. No enquiry was made against him, petitioner. Even a copy of that report was not handed over to him. 10. On 14-2-1983 the Pargana Adhikari sent a report to the District Magistrate. Pithoragarh recommending for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. This recommendation was based on the anonymous complaint to the Naib Tehsildar and Patwari's explanation dated 6-2-1983. whose copies have never been supplied to the petitioner. Even the copy of the recommendation dated 14-2-1983 has not been supplied to him. 11. The District Magistrate on the basis of the report to the Pargana Adhikari dated 14-2-1983 suspended the petitioner on 14-2-1983 from the office of Supervisor Qanoongo. A charge-sheet was issued on 18-5-1983. The charges were (i) The petitioner, has been guilty of permitting Shrinath Singh to lift the trees even prior to the deposit of money by him. (ii) The petitioner has been guilty of marking 22 trees without any order, felling 28 trees without marking. (iii) The petitioner was guilty of illegally felling of 50 trees. inter alia other charges which were not very material. 12. On 15-6-1983 the petitioner denied the charges through his reply. He made a request that he should be permitted to cross- examine Shrinath Singh, Naib Tehsildar Champawat (who had prepared and submitted the report dated 28-1-1983) and Sri Mal, Patwari. He further requested that the Patwari be directed to produce his diary for the period November, 1982 to February, 1983. The prayer for personal hearing was also made by him. He also demanded the copies of the various documents on which reliance has been placed in the charge-sheet. But these documents have not been supplied to him. 13. During the pendency of the enquiry the District Magistrate by his order dated 8-2-1984 granted selection grade to the petitioner for his efficient and good work with effect from 1-7-1979. 14. The enquiry officer submitted his report on .12-2-1984. But these documents have not been supplied to him. 13. During the pendency of the enquiry the District Magistrate by his order dated 8-2-1984 granted selection grade to the petitioner for his efficient and good work with effect from 1-7-1979. 14. The enquiry officer submitted his report on .12-2-1984. Neither the petitioner was given any personal hearing nor any opportunity to cross-examine the witness in spite of his demand. 15. Relying on the said report dated 12-2-1984 the District Magistrate dismissed the petitioner from post of Supervisor Qanoongo on 13-3-1984. The main ground of dismissal was the illegal marking of 22 trees without any order of the authority concerned. However, this order of the District Magistrate was set aside by the Commissioner on 19-11-1985 holding that the enquiry report was vague and defective. He directed the District Magistrate to hold fresh enquiry against the petitioner. 16. The petitioner was reinstated to the post of Supervisor Qanoongo on 12-1-1986 in pursuance of the order of the Commissioner dated 19-11-1985. 17. Without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, again the District Magistrate issued a letter to the petitioner on 13-8-1986 purporting to be a show cause notice, stating that on the basis of the fresh enquiry all the three charges have been found established. The petitioner was directed to show cause why the arrears of salary due to the petitioner for suspension period be not withheld. The alleged enquiry report was prepared behind the back of the petitioner without any knowledge to him. The petitioner was again not given any opportunity of being heard nor any opportunity to cross-examine Shrinath Singh and the Naib Tehsildar, Chempawat was given. 18. The letter dated 13-8-1986 was replied by the petitioner on 22-8-1986 again denying the charges. He again made a request for personal hearing. The District Magistrate was informed by the petitioner that in respect of the criminal case the police has already submitted a final report and no case was pending against him. 19. In spite of the request made by the petitioner, neither he was given opportunity of personal hearing nor opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses. The copy of the enquiry report dated 11-7-1986, which was made behind the back of the petitioner, was also not supplied to him. 20. 19. In spite of the request made by the petitioner, neither he was given opportunity of personal hearing nor opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses. The copy of the enquiry report dated 11-7-1986, which was made behind the back of the petitioner, was also not supplied to him. 20. On the basis of the enquiry report the District Magistrate, on 24-10-1986, held that all the three charges levelled against the petitioner were established. He accordingly passed an order for (i) reduction of rank to the post of Patwari, (ii) withholding of three increments, (iii) awarding of censure entry, (iv) withholding of arrears of salary, allowance etc. during the suspension period. This order was challenged by by the petitioner before the Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed. The present writ petition is directed against these two orders. 21. Before the Commissioner it was specifically stated that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing in as much as he was denied the prayer for cross-examining the witnesses. It was also asserted that on 6-12-1982 the Pargana Adhikari had made an order authorising Shrinath Singh for lifting the trees. The police had submitted final report in the criminal case lodged against the petitioner. The trees are lying on the spot and no loss has been caused to the Government. 22. The counter-affidavit filed by the State has admitted most of the facts. It has been admitted that on 29-10-1982 Shrinath Singh made an application before the Pargana Adhikari for permission to remove 4,1 trees which were either uprooted on account of the storm or were cut while widening the road. He forwarded this application to the petitioner for enquiry and report. The report was submitted by the petitioner. The Pargana Adhikari made an order for public auction which was held on 29-11-1982. Shrinath Singh was the highest bidder. His bid was accepted by the Authority concerned. Auction money was deposited in the Treasury. Thereafter an order was passed by the Pargana Adhikari on. 19-1-1983 permitting Shrinath Singh to lift the said trees. The petitioner issued slip for removal of the same. 23. On some anonymous complaint the Tahsildar restrained Shrinath Singh from removing the said trees. 24. The main contest of this case by the State was that there was no provision to supply copies of the enquiry report to the petitioner unless he asked for it. The petitioner issued slip for removal of the same. 23. On some anonymous complaint the Tahsildar restrained Shrinath Singh from removing the said trees. 24. The main contest of this case by the State was that there was no provision to supply copies of the enquiry report to the petitioner unless he asked for it. Accordingly he was not supplied the copy of the said report. On account of the 42nd amendment of the Constitution, giving of the second opportunity to show cause of the penalty proposed has also been dispensed with. If the petitioner wanted to cross-examine any witness, he should have stated before the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was found guilty of illegally felling of 50 trees. 25. Heard Sri Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for. the petitioner. No Standing Counsel has come to this Court to contest the Writ Petition in spite of the fact that I had to wait for about half an hour for him. 26. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the enquiry and the disciplinary action were violative of the principles of natural justice as well as Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 27. On the basis of the first enquiry report dated 12-2-1984 the petitioner was dismissed by the District Magistrate on 13-3-1984. This order was set aside by the Commissioner on 19-11-1985. The Commissioner further directed for the reinstatement of the petitioner and de novo proceedings after due notice. The petitioner was reinstated on 12-1-1986 as Qanoongo. 28. On 13-8-1986 the District Magistrate sent a letter to the petitioner that after the order of the Commissioner of fresh enquiry was got conducted by him through Km. Shering Yajman, I.A.S., Pargana Adhikari. Lohaghat and all the three charges against the petitioner stood established by the second enquiry report. The petitioner was required to show cause why the punishment of withholding of arrears of salary, allowances etc. during the suspension period be not imposed. 29. Admittedly this second enquiry conducted by Km. Shering Yajman was done behind the back of the petitioner. Even the copy of this report was not supplied to the petitioner. On 22-8-1986 the petitioner wrote a letter to the District Magistrate stating that the Enquiry Officer has not given an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard nor he was given the opportunity to defend his case. Shering Yajman was done behind the back of the petitioner. Even the copy of this report was not supplied to the petitioner. On 22-8-1986 the petitioner wrote a letter to the District Magistrate stating that the Enquiry Officer has not given an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard nor he was given the opportunity to defend his case. He prayed for personal hearing and also made a demand for the supply of the copy of the said enquiry report. 30. The District Magistrate without paying any heed to the said letter dated 22-8-1986, sent by the petitioner, passed an order of punishment. 31. What would be the effect of non- supplying of the copy of the enquiry report and denial of the opportunity to the petitioner of cross-examining the witnesses, and conducting the enquiry behind the back of the petitioner ? The effect of the 42nd amendment of the Constitution on the merit of the case is equally an important point to be considered. Both the points are taken up together. Effect Of 42nd Amendment of the Constitution of India Article 311 of the Constitution as it stood prior to amendment "311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. (1) No-person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an All India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (1) No-person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an All India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges and where it is proposed, after such inquiry, to impose on him any such penalty, until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed, but only on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry : Provided that this clause shall not apply - (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) where 'the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. (3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final." After the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, Article 311-: "311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or person employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or person employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State. (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an All India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he - was appointed (2) No such person as aforesaid- shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the. charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges : Provided that where it is proposed such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed : Provided further that this clause shall not apply (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. (3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final. 32. The first proviso to Article 311 (2) expressly authorises the imposition of penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank after such an enquiry as is envisaged by clause (2) of Article 311 and declares that "it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed." 33. 32. The first proviso to Article 311 (2) expressly authorises the imposition of penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank after such an enquiry as is envisaged by clause (2) of Article 311 and declares that "it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed." 33. Now in view of this 42nd amendment which dispensed with the necessity of giving an opportunity to the charged officer against the proposed penalty to be imposed some amendments have been made in the Rules (State and Central) governing the disciplinary proceedings against the public servant. 34. In the case of Ram Chander v. Union of India reported in (1986) 2 Serv LR 608 : (1986 Lab IC 885), the Supreme Court while considering the 42nd amendment took the view "After the amendment, the requirement of clause (2) will he satisfied by holding an inquiry in which the Government servant has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. But the essential safeguard of showing his innocence at the second stage i.e. after the Disciplinary Authority has come to a tentative conclusion of quilt upon a perusal of findings reached by the Enquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence adduced, as also against the proposed punishment, has been removed to the detriment of the delinquent officer. In view of the said amendment of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, Rule 10(5) of the Railway Servants Rules has been substituted to bring it in confirmity with clause (2) of Article 311, as amended." 35. This point has further been clarified in the case of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398 (1985 Lab IC 1393). 36. This point has further been clarified in the case of Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398 (1985 Lab IC 1393). 36. In the case reported in (1985) 4 SCC 252 : (1986 Lab IC 1) Satyavir Singh v. Union of India, relying on its earlier decision in the case of Tulsiram, the Supreme Court clarified the position further that clause (2) of Article 311 gives a constitutional mandate to the principles of natural justice and the audi alteram partem rule by providing that a civil servant shall not be dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank until after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. The nature of this inquiry has been elaborately set out in Khem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300 and even after the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. the inquiry required by clause (2) of Article 311 would be the same except that it would not be necessary to give to a civil servant an opportunity to make a representation with respect to the penalty proposed to he imposed. 37. On examination of the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in various cases mentioned in the preceding paragraph what has been done by the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976 was that show-cause notice with respect to the proposed penalty has been dispensed with. But the obligation to afford a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and to observe the principles of natural justice by supplying all the material sought to be put against a charged officer, which includes an enquiry report, is not in any way dispensed with. Denial of the copy or enquiry report and an opportunity to make an effective representation does offend the principles of natural justice and violates the provision of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. 38. So far this 42 and Amendment Act. 1976 is concerned, the petitioner has not made any grievance. The point raised by the State is only of academic value. 39. There is no denial in the counter- affidavit that the U.P. Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956 is not applicable in the instant case. The result would be that this rule will apply with full force in the present case. The point raised by the State is only of academic value. 39. There is no denial in the counter- affidavit that the U.P. Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956 is not applicable in the instant case. The result would be that this rule will apply with full force in the present case. Rule 55 runs as follows : "55 (I) Without prejudice to the provision of the Public Servants Inquiries Act, 1850, no order (other than an order based on facts which had led to his conviction in a criminal court or by a court martial) or dismissal. removal or reduction in rank (which includes reduction to a lower post or time-scale or to a lower stage in a time-scale but excludes the revision to a lower post of a person who is officiating in a higher post) shall be passed on a person who is a member of a Civil Service or holds a civil post under the State unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced in the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the person charged and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the - charged Government servant of the facts and circumstances against him. He shall he required, within a reasonable time to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires, or if the authority concerned so directs, an oral inquiry shall he held in respect of such of the allegations as are not admitted. At that inquiry such oral evidence will be heard as the inquiring officer considers necessary. The person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses. to give evidence in-person and to have such witnesses called as he may, wish, provided that the officer conducting the inquiry may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. to give evidence in-person and to have such witnesses called as he may, wish, provided that the officer conducting the inquiry may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. The officer conducting the inquiry may also separately from these proceedings, make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the charged Government servant. (2) Where the punishing authority itself inquires into any charge or appoints an inquiry officer for holding an inquiry into such charge, the punishing authority, if it considers it necessary to do so, may, by an order, appoint a Government servant or a legal practitioner, to be known as "Presiding Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the charge. (3) The Government servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant to present the case on his behalf, but not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the presenting officer appointed by the punishing authority is a legal practitioner or the punishing authority having regard to the circumstances of the case so permits. (4) This rule shall not apply where the person concerned has absconded, or where it is for other reasons impracticable to communicate with him. All or any of.this provisions of the rule may, for sufficient reasons to he recorded in writing be waived, where there is difficulty in observing exactly the requirements, of. the rule and those requirements can in the opinion of the inquiring officer be waived without injustice to person charged. (5) This rule shall also not apply where it is proposed to terminate the employment of either a temporary Government servant or of a probationer whether during or at the end of the period of probation. In such cases a simple notice of termination, which in the case of a temporary Government servant, must conform to the conditions of his service, will he sufficient." 40. The instant case maybe examined on the basis of sub-rule (1) of Rule 55. It does make a mention that an adequate opportunity to defend himself and also if he so desires the authority concerned may permit the delinquent officer to lead his oral evidence and to cross-examine the witness. The instant case maybe examined on the basis of sub-rule (1) of Rule 55. It does make a mention that an adequate opportunity to defend himself and also if he so desires the authority concerned may permit the delinquent officer to lead his oral evidence and to cross-examine the witness. The officer conducting the inquiry may, for sufficient reason to he recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. In this case no such reasons have been given by the Enquiry Officer or the punishing authority for not permitting the petitioner the opportunity of cross- examining the witnesses and not supplying the relevant papers mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. The impugned orders are in clear violation of the said rule as well. 41. In the case reported in Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 2118 : (1986 Lab IC 1939) it has been held (Para 12) "Be that as it may, even without going into minute details it is evident that the appellant was entitled to have an access to the documents and statements throughout the course of the inquiry. He would have needed these documents and statements in order to cross-examine the 38 witnesses who were produced at the inquiry to establish the charges against him. So also at the time of arguments, he would have needed the copies of the documents to enable him to effectively cross-examine the witnesses with reference to the contents of the documents. It is obvious that he could not have done so if copies had not been made available to him. Taking an overall view of the matter we have no doubt in our mind that the appellant has been denied a reasonable opportunity of exonerating himself. We do not consider its necessary to quote extensively from the authorities cited on behalf of the parties, beyond making passing reference to some of the citations, for, whether or not there has been a denial to afford a reasonable opportunity in the backdrop of this case must substantially depend upon the facts pertaining to this matter. 42. Relying upon a earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1967 Serv LR 759 (SC), Tirlok Nath v. Union of India, on the question of non-supplying copies of documents, it was held that it amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity. 42. Relying upon a earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1967 Serv LR 759 (SC), Tirlok Nath v. Union of India, on the question of non-supplying copies of documents, it was held that it amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity. The relevant extract is as follows : "Had he decided to do so, the documents would have been useful to the appellant for cross-examining the witnesses who deposed against him. Again had the copies of the documents been furnished to the appellant he might, after perusing them, well have exercised his right under the rule and asked for an oral inquiry to he held. Therefore, in our view the failure of the Inquiry Officer to furnish to the appellant with copies of the documents such as the FIR and statements recorded at Shidhipura house and during the investigation must he held to have caused prejudice to the appellant in making his defence at the inquiry." 43. Reliance was also placed on the cases reported in AIR 1974 SC 2335 : (1974 Lab IC 1442) State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram; and AIR 1982 SC 937 : (1982 Lab IC 1234) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Sharif (dead) through L.Rs. in support of proposition that copies of the statements of witnesses must be supplied to the Government servant facing departmental enquiry. 44. The same view has been taken in the cases reported in AIR 1958 SC 300 Khem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 454 : (1983 Lab IC 662), Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh; and AIR 1969 SC 1294 : (1969 Lab LC 1547) State of Gujara v. R.G. Teredesai. 45. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1983 SC 454 : (1983 Lab IC 662) ; Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh. The appellant in that case was a Forest guard. One Kali Das cut and felled 21 Spruce trees. It was alleged that the appellant as Forest-guard and one Dhuni Chand, Block Officer, failed to exercise necessary supervision with a view to prevent illicit felling of the said trees. an enquiry was set up. Kali Das took the defence that the trees were standing on the land and he did not commit any illegality. It was alleged that the appellant as Forest-guard and one Dhuni Chand, Block Officer, failed to exercise necessary supervision with a view to prevent illicit felling of the said trees. an enquiry was set up. Kali Das took the defence that the trees were standing on the land and he did not commit any illegality. It was stated that there was an honest error about the boundary line dividing his private land with the forest land and, therefore, he felled the trees. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant and one Dhuni Chand. Block Officer, the enquiry officer, held the charges of illicit felling and negligence in the performance of Government duty has been established but doubtful honesty was not proved. It was provisionally decided to impose a penalty of removal from service. He was served with a notice under Article 311(2) of the Constitution calling upon him to show cause why the proposed penalty of dismissal may not be given to him. After considering the matter he was removed from service. The said order was confirmed in appeal as well as in revision. The same view was upheld by High Court. 46. On appeal the Supreme Court in addition to the question of denial of reasonable opportunity. considered whether there was any negligence in performance of duty and examined the facts itself. 47. While exercising this power Supreme Court held (at p.,668 of 1983 Lab IC) "Let us make it abundantly clear that we are not sitting in appeal over the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Ina petition under Article 226 the High Court does not function as a Court of appeal over the findings of disciplinary authority. But where the findings is utterly perverse, the Court can always interfere with the same. We may refer in this connection to Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 at p. 728: AIR 1964 SC 364 at p. 369, Gajendragadkar, J. speaking for the Court observed as under : "It still remains to be considered whether the respondent is not right when he contends that in the circumstances of this case, the conclusion of the Government is based on no evidence whatever. It is a conclusion which is perverse and, therefore, suffers from such an obvious and patent error on the face of the record that the High Court would be justified in quashing it. It is a conclusion which is perverse and, therefore, suffers from such an obvious and patent error on the face of the record that the High Court would be justified in quashing it. In dealing with writ petitions filed by the public servants who have been dismissed, or otherwise dealt with so as to attract Article 31112), the High Court under Article 311 (2), the High Court under Article 226 has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of the Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported by any evidence at all. It is true that the order of dismissal which may be passed against a Government servant found guilty of misconduct, can be described as an administrative order, nevertheless, the proceedings held against such a public servant under the statutory rules to determine whether he is guilty of the charges framed against him are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings and there can he little doubt that a writ of certiorari, for instance, can be claimed by a public servant if he is able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate conclusion of the Govt. in the said proceedings, which is the basis of his dismissal is based on no evidence." After applying this test in that case, the Court proceeded to have a close look at the evidence that was led in the case and in the circumstances of the case rejected the evidence of Sri Rajagopalan, who claimed to have given the bribe and reached the conclusion that the finding of the Government holding the delinquent officer guilty of excepting bribe was perverse and unsupported by any evidence. More or less the facts before us almost lead to the same conclusion." 48. The contention of the learned counsel' for the appellant in that case was that in case if there was some negligence in performance of the duty by the appellant and such negligence was likely to cause some loss to the Government, then of course the impugned order could he justified, but the fact that no loss was caused to the Government the punishment- was had had found favour with the Supreme Court. 49. Another question which cropped before the Supreme Court was that what relief could be granted to the appellant in that case. 49. Another question which cropped before the Supreme Court was that what relief could be granted to the appellant in that case. It was held (at p. 669 of 1983 Lal) IC) "Ordinarily where the disciplinary inquiry is shown to have been held in violation of the principle of natural justice, the inquiry would be vitiated and the order based on such inquiry would he quashed by the issuance of a writ of certiorari. It is well settled that in such a situation, it would he open to the disciplinary authority to hold the inquiry afresh. What would he the normal consequence ............. -More so looking to the fact that there is a very minor infraction of duty leading to a trivial charge of negligence in performance of duty which has caused no loss of the Government, we are of the opinion that it would not be fair to this low paid class IV Government servant to face the hazards of a fresh inquiry............ After all what is the purpose of holding a fresh inquiry ? Obviously, it must be to some penalty. It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct, and that airy penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, Having been influenced by all these relevant considerations, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by a fresh inquiry ."........." we believe that justice and fair play demand that we make an order of minor penalty here and now without being unduly technical apart jurisdiction, we are fortified in this view by the decision of this Court in Hindustan Steels Ltd., Rourkela v. A.K. Roy, AIR 1970 SC 1401 : (1970 Lab IC 1166) ........... Keeping in view, the nature of misconduct, gravity of charge and no consequential loss, a penalty of withholding his increments with future effect-will meet the ends of justice." 50. Ultimately the appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court. Exactly similar is the position in this case. Since in this case the Pargana Adhikari has passed an order for auction of those 43 trees, the auction was held. The highest bid of Shrinath Singh was accepted. He deposited the entire auction money in the Treasury and only then he was permitted to lift the trees. Exactly similar is the position in this case. Since in this case the Pargana Adhikari has passed an order for auction of those 43 trees, the auction was held. The highest bid of Shrinath Singh was accepted. He deposited the entire auction money in the Treasury and only then he was permitted to lift the trees. There was no negligence or misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Moreover the admitted facts of this case are that the trees have not been removed from the spot and they are still lying and no loss has been caused to the Government nor any unlawful gain to the petitioner has been alleged. 51. Moreover admittedly in this case on 8-2-1984 the petitioner was awarded selection grade by the order of the District Magistrate with effect from 1-7-1979. 52. Accordingly I hold that the petitioner was deprived of the reasonable opportunity of defending himself. There was violation of the principles of natural justice. The order of punishment passed by the District Magistrate and the order of the Commissioner dismissing the appeal of the petitioner are held to be illegal and quashed. The petitioner will be reinstated to the post of Supervisor Qanoongo and will be entitled to all the emoluments including salary due till the date of reinstatement. 53. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs.