BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE point for consideration is whether the impugned order dated 25-4-1983 vide annexure-q dismissing the petitioner from service deserves to be quashed for non-compliance with the requirements of Rule 8-6 (9) of the service rules of the respondent corporation. ( 2 ) RULE 8-6 (9) aforesaid reads as follows:-"orders passed by the disciplinary authority shall be communicated to the employee who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiry authority and where the disciplinary authority is not the enquiry authority, a statement of his findings together with brief reasons for dis agreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiry authority. " ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that though a show cause notice was served on the petitioner proposing enhancement of the punishment already awarded to the petitioner by the reviewing authority, at the time of consideration of the question of enhancement the petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the report of the inquiry authority and, therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to offer adequate and satisfactory explanation to persuade the reviewing authority from enhancing the punishment. It is also the case of the petitioner that the requirement of Rule 8-6 (9) of the service rules of the respondent - corporation of furnishing a copy of the report of the inquiry authority is mandatory and non-compliance with the requirement renders the impugned order void. ( 4 ) A plain reading of the wordings in Rule 8-6 (9) as well as the language of the said Rule makes it amply clear that the reviewing authority ought to have furnished a copy of the report of the inquiry authority to the petitioner as a matter of statutory obligation and failure to do so would certainly vitiate the impugned order. The question that was before the reviewing authority was one of enhancement of punishment which entails the application of the principle of proportionality in awarding punishment. Denial of a copy of the enquiry report or failure to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner tantamounts to violation of natural Justice apart from an infringement of Rule 8-6 (9 ). The principle of proportionality is another dimension of natural justice. The implication is that punishment awarded ought to be reasonably commensurate with the gravity of the wrong committed. The principle of proportionality is another dimension of natural justice. The implication is that punishment awarded ought to be reasonably commensurate with the gravity of the wrong committed. Non-furnishment of the copy of the enquiry report makes all the difference in so far as the petitioner is concerned particularly since the reviewing authority did not have the benefit of looking into the possible explanation from the petitioner. ( 5 ) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the original punishment awarded to the petitioner under Annexure-L withholding one increment with cumulative effect and ordering recovery of Rs. 3,000/- from the petitioner and administration of stern warning to the petitioner have already been suffered by the petitioner and, therefore, this is a fit case for grant of consequential benefits even otherwise. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order under annexure-q dated 25-4-1983 is quashed. It is hereby made clear that the petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits without affecting the punishment which the petitioner has already suffered in pursuance of Annexure-L. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .