JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who is working 3s Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, has challenged the legality of the order dated 18.5.84 by which penalty of stoppage of 5 grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on him and it has been ordered that he will not be entitled to anything more than subsistence allowance already paid during the period of suspension and the period of suspension will be counted as service for pension purposes. 2. The petitioner had joined service as Assistant Engineer in the year 1964. A memorandum dated 25.3.1980 was served upon the petitioner by the State Government proposing an inquiry against him under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. The charge sheet and statement of allegations were enclosed with the aforesaid memorandum. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet on 29.8.1980. On 21.7.1983 an order came to be passed by the Government under Rule 13 of 1958 Rules and thereby the petitioner was placed under suspension. This order contained a stipulation that the Government has taken provisional decision to dis,miss the petitioner and two others from service. The petitioner protested against this order and applied for inspection of the record so as to get a copy of the decision of the Government regarding his proposed dismissal from service. By his application dated 5.8.1983, he has prayed that he may be furnished with the copy of statements filed during the preliminary inquiry, documents filed during the course of inquiry, conclusion and/or finding of the Commissioner, Departmental Inquiries and some other documents. However, copy of the findings and copy of the inquiry report were not furnished to the petitioner. By order dated 18.5.84 which has been impugned in this writ petition, penalty of stoppage of 5 grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted that in order to submit review petition under Rule 34 of 1958 Rules he again made an application/representation dated 6.7.84 for supply of various documents enumerated in the said application. He did not receive any reply in response to that application and, therefore, served a notice for demand of justice on 23.6.1985. The petitioner had made reference to some facts regarding merits of the charges. He did not receive any reply in response to that application and, therefore, served a notice for demand of justice on 23.6.1985. The petitioner had made reference to some facts regarding merits of the charges. But since this writ petition is being disposed of on a pure question of law, I do not consider it necessary to refer to all facts pertaining to the merits of the charges. 3. The petitioner has assailed the order of punishment on various grounds specified in para 34 of the petition. One of the main contention on which the petition is founded is, that copy of the .findings and/or report of the inquiry officer had not been furnished to the petitioner and he was not given an opportunity of making representation before the impugned order of punishment was passed: This has resulted in violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner has been denied reasonable opportunity of defending himself. 4. The respondents have controverted the allegations made in the petition on the merits of charges. It has been submitted by the respondents that there is no requirement of furnishing copy of the inquiry report in view of the provisions contained in Rule 16(10)(i) of 1958 Rules as it stands amended by notification dated 21.6.1983 published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 7.7.1983. According to the respondents, the requirement of second show cause notice has been dispensed with and, therefore, the requirement of furnishing copy of the findings of the inquiry officer and the report of the inquiry officer must also be deemed to have been dispensed with. 5. Shri B.L. Samdaria, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the contentions raised in the petition. He has emphatically argued that supply of copy of the inquiry report was necessary before passing of the impugned order of punishment. He submitted that penalty of stoppage of grade increments with cumulative effect amounts to major penalty as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Shri Krishan Dutt Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 (1) R.L.R. 346 . He has also referred to the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gil v. State of Punjab (J.T. 1990 (4) SC 470) , in which it has been held that stoppage of grade increments with cumulative effect would fall within the scope of major penalty. He has also referred to the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gil v. State of Punjab (J.T. 1990 (4) SC 470) , in which it has been held that stoppage of grade increments with cumulative effect would fall within the scope of major penalty. According to Shri Samdaria, stoppage of grade increments with cumulative effect is treated as major penalty, it was obligatory for the respondents to have furnished the petitioner with a copy of the report of the inquiry officer containing findings which were adverse to him and he should have been given an opportunity of making his submissions against the findings as also on the procedure adopted by the inquiry officer. Shri Samdaria has placed reliance on Union of India v. Mohd. Ramjan Khan, (J.T. 1990(4) SC 456) . 6. Shri Ashok Parihar, leraned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand, with his usual ability argued that after amendment of Rule 16(10) it is no more the requirement of law that inquiry report should be furnished to the delinquent before passing of the order of punishment. He submitted that the only obligation on the disciplinary authority is to consider the record of the inquiry and the report of the inquiry officer and pass appropriate order containing reasons for holding the delinquent guilty and for imposing punishment. Shri Parihar submitted that the principles of natural justice requiring that a copy of inquiry report be furnished to the delinquent must be demonic-.". to have been displaced and/or excluded by virtue of amendment made in Rule 10 by notification dated 21.6.1983. He further argued that the rules of natural justice cannot be put in straight jacket formula and once the legislation intendment against supply of copy of inquiry report has been made clear by amendment of Rule 16(10), this requirement cannot be read as implicit in the said Rule. He submitted that this Rule has been substituted in order to be in tune with Article 311 of the Constitution of India as it stands after 42nd Constitution Amendment Act,1977. Shri Parihar then argued that stoppage of grade increments with cumulative effect was treated as covered by Rule 14(ii) of 1958 Rules. Thus the disciplinary authority was entitled to impose penalty of stoppage of grade increments with cumulative effect by treating it to be minor penalty. Shri Parihar then argued that stoppage of grade increments with cumulative effect was treated as covered by Rule 14(ii) of 1958 Rules. Thus the disciplinary authority was entitled to impose penalty of stoppage of grade increments with cumulative effect by treating it to be minor penalty. For this purpose appropriate order could always be made under Rule 16(11) of 1958 Rules. It was not at all necessary to have resorted to the provisions of Rule 16(10) for imposing minor penalty. 7. Rule 16(10) of 1958 Rules as it stood prior to its amendment vide Notification dated 21.6.1983 was in the following terms :16(10) (i) "If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its finding on the charges is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (iv) to (vii) of rule 14 should be imposed, it shall (a) furnish to the Government servant a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority and where he disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for dis,agreement, it any, with the findings of the inquiring Authority; and (b) give him a notice stating the penalty proposed to be imposed on him and calling upon him to submit within a specified time such representation as he may wish to make on the proposed penalty, provided that such representation shall be based only on the evidence adduced during the enquiry." 16 (10) (ii) "(a) in every case in which it is necessary to consult the Commission the record of the inquiry together with a copy of the notice given under clause (i) and the representation made in response to such notice, if any, shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the Commission for its advice. (b) On receipt of the advice of the Commission, the Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation, if any, made by Government Servant as aforesaid, and the advice given by the Commission and determine what penalty, if any, should be imposed on the Government servant and pass appropriate orders in the case. (b) On receipt of the advice of the Commission, the Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation, if any, made by Government Servant as aforesaid, and the advice given by the Commission and determine what penalty, if any, should be imposed on the Government servant and pass appropriate orders in the case. (iii) In any case in which it is not necessary to consult Commission, the Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation, if any, made by the Government Servant in response to the notice under clause (i) and deter,mine what penalty if any, should be imposed on the Government servant and pass appropriate orders in the case." After its amendment by notification dated 21.6.1983, it reads as under: "16 (10) If the Disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on the charges is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of rule 14 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the Government servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed: Provided that in every case in which it is necessary to consult the Commission the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the Commission for it's advise and such advise shall be taken into consideration before making an order imposing such penalty on the Government servant." Rule 16 (11) and (12) of 1958 Rules, which have not been amended are also reproduced below: 16 (11) "If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iii) of rule 14 should be imposed, it shall pass appropriate orders in the case: Provided that in every case in which it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice taken into consideration before passing the orders. 16 (12) "Orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority shall be communicated to the Government Servant who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of the authority Inquiring Authority and where the Disciplinary is not the Inquiring authority, a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority, unless they have already been supplied to him, and also a copy of the advice, if any, given by the Commission and, where the Disciplinary Authority has not accepted the advice of the Commission, a brief statement of the reasons for such non-acceptance. It will however, not be necessary to furnish a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer in the case where any of the penalties specified in Clauses (0 to (iii) of the rule 14 is imposed on the Government Servant." 8. The question as to whether the penalty of stoppage of grade increment/s with cumulative effect is a minor penalty or major penalty under Rule 14 of 1958 Rules now stands finally concluded in view of the decision of the Division Bench in Krishan Dutt's case (supra). After discussing various decisions and after analysing Rule 14 of 1958 Rules, the Division Bench proceeded to hold as under : "A perusal of the seven kinds of penalties specified under Rule 14 shows that under clause (ii) only withholding of increment has been mentioned but it no where specified that withholding of increments could also be given with cumulative effect. In case a penalty of withholding of grade increment is imposed for one year or two years then such Government servant is put to a financial loss for a limited period and he becomes entitled to his usual grade increment after such period of one year or two years. While in case of withholding of grade increment with cumulative effect the Government servant is put to a financial loss for the entire period of his future service and the result is that he is put to one grade increment less for the entire period of his remaining service. In our view such penalty of with holding of grade increment with cumulative effect and reduction to a lower stage in the time scale as provided as one of the penalties under Clause (iv) of Rule 14 are equivalent and have the same effect. In our view such penalty of with holding of grade increment with cumulative effect and reduction to a lower stage in the time scale as provided as one of the penalties under Clause (iv) of Rule 14 are equivalent and have the same effect. Learned Additional Government Advocate was unable to explain any difference in the aforesaid two kinds of penalties. If a Government servant is given a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the same time scale, then also such Government servant is put to a loss of one grade increment for the entire period of his service after such punishment. It remains undisputed that the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale as specified in clause (iv) of Rule 14 is a major penalty and procedure for enquiry has to be followed as provided under Rule 16 of the Rules. We are, thus clearly of the view that in the present case the penalty imposed on the appellant was a major penalty and as the procedure contemplated under Rule 16 has not been followed as such the order imposing penalty is totally without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed." The principles laid down in Krishan Dutta's case have been reiterated by several Division Benches of this court and have been followed by the Single Benches in different cases decided subsequently. The subsequent Division Benches refused to reconsider this issue in the light of some contrary decisions of the Punjab High Court. This question came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh's case (supra). After considering Rule 5 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970, the Hon'ble Supreme Court over ruled the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab & Others (LL.R. 1985(2) P & H 193) . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court proceeded to observe as under:- "Withholding of increments of pay simplicitor, undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5 (iv). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court proceeded to observe as under:- "Withholding of increments of pay simplicitor, undoubtedly is a minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5 (iv). But sub-rule (v) postulates reduction to a lower scale in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether of not the Government employee shall earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. It is an independent read of penalty and it could be imposed as punishment in an appropriate case. It is one of the major penalties. The impugned order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect whether would fall within the meaning of Rule 5(v). When it so falls, Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules require conducting of regular inquiry. .. . Withholding of increments of pay simpliciter without any hedge over it certainly comes within the meaning of Rule 5(iv) of the Rules. But when penalty was imposed withholding two increments i.e. for two years with cumulative effect, it would undisputedly means that two increments earned by an employee was cut off as a major penalty forever in his upward march for higher scale of pay. In other words, clouge is put back to a lower scale of time scale of pay and on expiry of two years the clouge starts working from that stage afresh. This insidious effect of the impugned order by necessary implication, is that the appellant employee is reduced in his time scale by two place and it is in-perpetuate during the rest of the tenure of his service with a direction that two years increments would not be counted in his time scale of pay as a major of penalty. Rule 5(iv) does not empower the departmental authority to impose penalty of withholding of increments of pay with cumulative effect except after holding an inquiry and following the procedure prescribed. Then the order would be without jurisdiction and authority of law and it would be perse void." 9. Rule 5(iv) does not empower the departmental authority to impose penalty of withholding of increments of pay with cumulative effect except after holding an inquiry and following the procedure prescribed. Then the order would be without jurisdiction and authority of law and it would be perse void." 9. It must, therefore, be hold that penalty imposed on the petitioner for withholding of five grade increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty under Rule 14(iv) of 1958 Rules and such penalty could be imposed on the petitioner only after following the procedure prescribed in 1958 Rules for imposition of major penalties specified in Rule 14(iv) to (vii) of the Rules. 10. Rule 16(10) as it stood prior to the amendment made in it vide notification dated 21.6.83 was plain. It was obligatory for the disciplinary authority to furnish a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent Government servant, give him a notice of the proposed punishment and also give him an opportunity to make his representation. After receipt of the representation, if any, and after considering the material on record, the order of punishment of major penalty could be passed by the disciplinary authority. Such order was required to be communicated to the Government servant with the copy of the inquiry report and a statement of findings of the disciplinary authority together with brief reasons of disagreement, if any with the findings of the Inquiring authority unless they have already been supplied to him and also a copy of the advise, if any, given by the Commission. The disciplinary authority was also required to give brief statement of reasons in case the advise of the Commission had not been accepted. After amendment of Rule 16(10) by notification dated 21.6.1983, the disciplinary authority is now empowered to make an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 14(iv) to (vii) once it forms an opinion, on the basis of its finding on the charges levelled against the delinquent that such a penalty shall be imposed. The amended Rule makes it clear that it shall not be necessary to give a Government servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed. The amended Rule makes it clear that it shall not be necessary to give a Government servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed. Proviso to Rule 16(10) as it stands after amendment requires consultation with the Commission and the Disciplinary authority is to take into consideration the advise of the Commission before making the order imposing any of the major penalties on the delinquent Government servant. Thus, so far as the plain language of the Rule in concerned, the only express exclusion is of giving an opportunity of making representation to the Government servant on the penalty proposed to be imposed. The question is as to whether there is an implied exclusion of the principles of natural justice as interpreted and applied by the various courts of this country in cases relating to the disciplinary actions against the Government servants, whereby requirement of furnishing of copy of the inquiry report and/or findings of the disciplinary authority has been held to be mandatory. 11. In Union of India v. Tulshi Ram Patel ( AIR 1985 SC 1416 ) a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by its majority judgment (Per Madan, J.) considered the various faceats of the principles of natural justice. The court observed that the principles of natural justice are not the creation of Article 14. Article 14 is not their begetter but their constitutional guardian. The court then discussed various aspects of natural law and then proceeded to make the following observations : "How then have the principles of natural justice been interpreted in the courts and within what limits are they to be confined? Over the years by a process of judicial interpretation two rules have been evolved as representing the principles of natural justice in judicial process including therein quasi-judicial and administrative processes. They constitute the basis elements of a fir hearing, having their roots in the innate sense of man for fair play and justice which is not the preserve of any particular race or country but is shared in common by all men. The first rule is "nemojudex in causa sua" or "nemo debet esse judex in propria causes" as stated in (1605) 12 Go. Rep. 114, that is "no man shall be a judge in his own cause". The first rule is "nemojudex in causa sua" or "nemo debet esse judex in propria causes" as stated in (1605) 12 Go. Rep. 114, that is "no man shall be a judge in his own cause". Coke used the form "aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa quia non potest esse judex et pars" (Co. Litt. 141a), that is, no man ought to be a judge in his own cause, because he cannot act as a judge and at the same time be a party". The form "nemo potest esse simul actor et judex", that is, "no once can be at once suitor and judge" is also at times used. The second rule and that is the rule with which we are concerned in these Appeals that is, "hear the other side". At times and particularly in continental countries the form "audietur et altera pars" is used, meaning very much the same thing. A corollary has been deduced from the above two rules and particularly the audi alteram partem rule, namely, "quasaliquid statuerit parte inaudita altera, aequum licet dixerit, haud aequum fecerit", that is, "he who shall decide anything without the other side having been heard, although he may have said what is right, will not have done what is right" (See Boswell's Case (1605)6 Co. Rep.48b, 52a) or, in other words, as it is now expressed, "justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done." 12. The Court then discussed the relationship between the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice and after referring to the various American and English cases on the subject and also the decision of the Supreme Court in E.P. Roiappa v. State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 1974 SC 555 ) , State of Andhra Pradesh v. Natrajan Reddy ( AIR 1967 SC 1458 ) , Menka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 248) and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Museeb Shrabadi ( AIR 1981 SC 487 ) , the Court concluded as under: "The principles of natural justice have thus come to be recognised as being a part of the guarantee contained in Article 14 because of the new and dynamic interpretation given by this Court to the concept of equality which is the subject matter of that Article. Shortly, put the syllogism runs thus; violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination; where discrimination is the result of the State action, it is a violation of Article 14: therefore, a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a violation of Article 14. Article 14, however, is not the sole repository of the principles of natural justice. What it does is to guarantee that any law of State action violating the will be struck down. The principles of natural justice, however, apply not only to legislation and State action, but also where any tribunal, authority or body of men, not coming within the definition of State in Article 12 is charged with the duty of deciding a matter. In such a case, the principles of natural justice require that it must decide such matter fairly and impartially". 13. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court then referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala ( AIR 1969 SC 198 ) , A.K. Karaipak v. Union of India ( AIR 1970 SC 150 ) , Union of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha, ( AIR 1971 SC 40 ) and Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, ( AIR 1981 SC 818 ) and considered the scope of application of principle of natural justice in different circumstances. Their lordships then held that in certain given circumstances, the principles of natural justice will stand excluded. 14. In Administrative Law by H.N.R. Wade (VIth Edition) Page 538, while dealing with the principles of natural justice under the head "right to know the opposing case" the following remarks have been made: "A proper hearing must always include all fair opportunity to those who are parts to the controversy for correcting or contradicting any thing prejudicial to their view." The natural justice often requires the disclosen of evidence in possession of deciding authority. In Kanda v. Government of Malaya, (1962 AC 322) , the Privy Council declared the dismissal void because the adjudicating officer was in possession of a report of a board of inquiry, which made charges of mis conduct but which was not avail,able to the police officer. In Kanda v. Government of Malaya, (1962 AC 322) , the Privy Council declared the dismissal void because the adjudicating officer was in possession of a report of a board of inquiry, which made charges of mis conduct but which was not avail,able to the police officer. Lord Daning added; if the right to be heard is to be the real right which is worth any thing, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him: and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them. In A.G. v. Ryan, (7980 A.C. 718) a decision refusing application for citizenship was quashed on the ground that reasons which constituted the basis for this refusal were not disclosed to the affected person. 15. Can it be said that by virtue of amendment of Rule 16(10) the requirement of giving a copy of the inquiry report or the findings of the inquiring officer and giving of an opportunity to the delinquent employee to make his representation against such findings or the report stands excluded by implication. 16. So far as Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is concerned, even after amendment, it guarantees a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent employee to show cause against the charges levelled against him during the course of inquiry. What meaning should be ascribed to this term 'reasonable opportunity' and what is the extent and scope of the same? The report of the inquiry officer constitutes a very important material, on which the ultimate findings of the disciplinary authority rest. The inquiry officer inquires into the charges, records the evidence and the charging officer is permitted to produce witnesses, cross examine the witnesses and challenge the evidence during inquiry, but the inquiry does not conclude at that stage. The inquiry concludes only after the material is considered by the disciplinary authority. This material includes the inquiry Officer's report and the record containing findings on the charges. In fact, in large number of cases, the disciplinary authority does not hold this inquiry, but delegates this function to some other officer. The inquiry Officer records the oral as well as documentary evidence. The delinquent is entitled to rebut the evidence produced by the department before the inquiry officer. In fact, in large number of cases, the disciplinary authority does not hold this inquiry, but delegates this function to some other officer. The inquiry Officer records the oral as well as documentary evidence. The delinquent is entitled to rebut the evidence produced by the department before the inquiry officer. He can produce his own evidence oral as well as documentary. It is for the inquiry officer to consider the material and then record a finding as to whether the charge is established or not. The disciplinary authority has to act on the report or the inquiry officer, which constitutes a part and parcel of the record of inquiry. If he disagrees with the report of the inquiry officer, reasons have to be recorded by it as per the requirement of Rule 16(9) and also Rule 16(12). If the inquiry officer submits a report, which is adverse to the delinquent, certainly it constitutes a material, which is always open to be used by the disciplinary authority against the delinquent. 17. In State of Assam v. Vimal Kumar Pandit ( AIR 1963 SC 1612 ) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the disciplinary, authority has to consider the inquiry officer's report before recording its own finding on the charges. In State of Maharashtra v. Bhai Shanker Avatram Joshi and Others, ( AIR 1969 SC 1302 ) and also in Karain Mishra v. State of Orissa, (1969 SLR 657) the Supreme Court held that if the disciplinary authority wanted to rely on the charges, of which the delinquent was acquitted with warning that the same was going to be used against him, it was all against the principles of fair play and natural justice. The delinquent ought to have been appraised of the intention of the disciplinary authority to ignore the findings of the inquiry officer and give him an adequate opportunity of defending himself. 18. From the above observations of the Supreme Court, it is clear that if the inquiry officer submits a report and that report is against the charged officer, since the report constitutes material, the charged officer must have an opportunity to make his representation against the report. 18. From the above observations of the Supreme Court, it is clear that if the inquiry officer submits a report and that report is against the charged officer, since the report constitutes material, the charged officer must have an opportunity to make his representation against the report. With such an opportunity he may be able to satisfy the disciplinary authority that the inquiry Officer's report does not contain proper appreciation of evidence or that it has ignored the material evidence or that the factors which are favourable to him have not been considered or that the conclusions drawn by the inquiry officer about the charges are not correct. Even if the report is favourable, it may not bring out all points. At times, the inquiry officer may ignore the important points supporting the delinquent. The disciplinary authority itself may not be in a position to fully appreciate such points and if opportunity is not afforded to the delinquent, serious prejudice would be caused. It would offend the principles of natural justice. Thus whereever the report is adverse to the delinquent or whereever the disciplinary authority records reasons for disagreement with the report, the disciplinary authority must comply with the principles of natural justice by giving a copy of the report to the delinquent and give him an opportunity of making his representation against the inquiry report or the reasons for disagreement. Article 311 as it stands amended or Rule 16(10) after its amendment only excludes giving of second show cause notice against the proposed penally. In my opinion, it does not by implication exclude the requirement of supply of copy of adverse material, namely, the inquiry report and /or the findings of the inquiry officer, which is nothing but a requirement of the principles of natural justice. 19. It is no doubt true that the disciplinary authority is not required to hold an inquiry at which evidence of witnesses viva voce is to be recorded if at the earlier stage there has been fair and full inquiry before the inquiry officer; but I am not persuaded to agree with the submission of the learned Additional -Government Advocate that after receipt of the report of inquiry officer by the disciplinary authority, the delinquent has no right whatsoever to make representation against the charges levelled against him before the disciplinary authority. The departmental proceedings continue till the disciplinary authority takes a final decision in respect of the charges levelled against the delinquent. The proceedings conclude only when final order is passed by the disciplinary authority after recording its finding on the charges levelled against the Government servant as required by Rule 16(9) of 1958 Rules. The order of punishment can be passed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of its findings. It is only at the stage of passing of final order of punishment that the delinquent is not required to be heard as per amended Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and Rule 16(10) of 1958 Rules. However, till the last stage is reached, the delinquent must be afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard so far as the charges levelled against him are concerned and there would be a clear denial of opportunity of hearing if he is not given an opportunity of making representation against the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. This is possible only if the report of the inquiry officer which contains findings on the charges levelled against the delinquent is made available to him. 20. The question' about supply of copy of inquiry report had come up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this court in Ram Singh v. R.S.R.T.C. (1986(1) Judicial Surveyor 129) (per A.K. Mathur, J.). Learned Single Judge held that even though there was no specific requirement of the Standing Order that a report of the inquiry officer should be made available to the delinquent, requirements of principles of natural justice warranted that such report should be made available to him. 21. This question has been examined by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramjan Khan (J.T. 1990(4) SC 456) . The qUestion regarding requirement of supply of copy of the report has been formulated in the following words in para 11 of the said judgment "The question which has now to be answ ered is whether the Forty-second Amendment has brought about any change in the position in the matter of supply of a copy of the report and the effect of non-supply thereof on the punishment imposed. After considering various decisions of the Supreme Court, their Lordships concluded that deletion of the requirement of second show cause notice is immaterial and then proceeded to make the following observations : "Several pronouncements of this Court dealing with Article 311(2) of the Constitution have laid down the test of ,natural justice in the matter of meeting the charges. This court on one occasion has stated that two phases of the inquiry contemplated under Article 311(2) prior to the 42nd amendment were judicial. That perhaps was a little stretching the position. Even if it does not become a judicial proceeding there can be no dispute that it is a quasi-judicial one. There is a charge and a denial followed by an inquiry at which evidence is led and assessment of the material before conclusion is reached. These facets do make the matter quasi-judicial and attract the principle of natural justice. As this court rightly pointed out in the Gujarat case, the disciplinary authority is very often influenced by the conclusions of the inquiry officer and even by the recommendations relating to the nature of punishment to be inflicted. With the forty-second Amendment, the delinquent officer is not associated with the disciplinary inquiry beyond the recording of evidence and the submissions made on the basis of the material to assist the Inquiry Officer to come to his conclusions. In case his conclusions are kept away from the delinquent officer and the Inquiry Officer submits his conclusions with or without recommendations as to punishment, the delinquent is precluded from knowing the contents thereof although such material is used against him by the disciplinary authority. The report is an adverse material if the Inquiry Officer records a finding of guilt and proposes a punishment so far as the delinquent is concerned. In a quasi-judicial matter, if the delinquent is being deprived of knowledge of the material against him though the same is made available to the punishing authority in the matter of reaching his conclusion, rules of natural justice would be affected. Prof. Wade has pointed out: "The concent of natural justice has existed for many centuries and it has crystalised into two rules: that no man should be judge in his own cause; and that no man should suffer without first being given a fair hearing. Prof. Wade has pointed out: "The concent of natural justice has existed for many centuries and it has crystalised into two rules: that no man should be judge in his own cause; and that no man should suffer without first being given a fair hearing. They (the courts) have been developing and extending the principles of natural justice so as to build up a kind of code of fair administrative procedure to be obeyed by authorities of all kinds. They have done this once again by assuming that Parliament always intends powers to be exercised fairly."(Administrative Law) This court in Mazharul Islam Hasmi v. State of U.P. & Anr. (1979)4 SCC 537 ) pointed out "Every person must know what he is to meet and he must have opportunity of meeting that case. The legistature however, can exclude operation of these principles expressly or implicitly. But in the absence of any such exclusion, the principle of natural justice will have to be proved." "Deletion of the second opportunity from the scheme of Article 311(2) of the Constitution has nothing to do with providing of a copy of the report to the delinquent in the matter of making his representation. Even though the second stage of the inquiry in Article 311(2) has been abolished by amendment, the delinquent is still entitled to represent against the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer holding that the charges or some of the charges are established and holding the delinquent guilty of such charges. For doing away with the effect of the enquiry report or to meet the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer in the matter of imposition of punishment, furnishing a copy of the report becomes necessary and to have the proceedings completed by using some material behind the back of the delinquent is a position not countenanced by fair procedure. While by law application of natural justice could be totally ruled out or turncated, nothing has been done here which could be taken as keeping natural justice out of the proceedings and the series of pronouncements of this Court making rules of natural justice applicable to such an Inquiry are not affected by the 42nd amendment. While by law application of natural justice could be totally ruled out or turncated, nothing has been done here which could be taken as keeping natural justice out of the proceedings and the series of pronouncements of this Court making rules of natural justice applicable to such an Inquiry are not affected by the 42nd amendment. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that supply of a copy of the Inquiry report along with recommendations, if any, in the matter of proposed punishment to be inflicted would be within the rules of natural justice and the delinquent would therefore, be entitled to the supply of a copy thereof. The forty second Amendment has not brought about any change in this position. The Court Further observed: "We make it clear that wherever 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 hereafter." 22. This question has also been examined by a learned Single Judge of this Court in M.K. Soni V15 State of Rajasthan : SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4191/89 decided on 4.12.1989 at Jodhpur (per M.R. Calla, J.). After taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Ramjan Khan's case, Calla, J. has held that the order of punishment passed without giving copy of inquiry report and affording an opportunity of making representation to the delinquent Government servant is violative of the principles of natural justice and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. In that case, the Court has categorically held that the law laid down in Mohd. Ramjan Khan's case will apply to all cases where punishment is under challenge, but will not apply to the cases there punishment has become final. 23. Though the decision in Mohd. In that case, the Court has categorically held that the law laid down in Mohd. Ramjan Khan's case will apply to all cases where punishment is under challenge, but will not apply to the cases there punishment has become final. 23. Though the decision in Mohd. Ramjan Khan's case dealt with the scope of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India after its amendment by 42nd Constitution Amendment Act and a provision like Rule 16(10) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958 was not under consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court, I am of the view that the principles laid down in Mohd. Ramjan Khan's case are fully applicable to the inquiries held under Rule 16 of 1958 Rules. Rule 16 had been amended by notification dated 21.6.1983 only with a view to bring it in confirmity with the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India after its amendment by 42nd Constitution Amendment Act. Rule 14 of 1958 Rules specifies several types of penalties, minor as well major, which may be imposed on a Government servant for good and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing. Rule 16 lays down the procedure, which has to be followed before the order imposing any of the major penalties under Rule 14 could be passed. Article 311 of the Constitution no doubt deals with only 3 types of punishment, namely, dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, but when supply of copy of inquiry report has been held to be sine- qua-non for compliance of the requirements of reasonable opportunity or the principles of natural justice, they must be held that for imposing any of the major penalties specified in Rule 14, when inquiry is held under Rule 16, it is obligatory for the disciplinary authority to furnish a copy of the findings of the inquiry officer or the inquiry report to the delinquent and give him an opportunity of making his representation against such findings and/or report. This implicit requirement of the principles of natural justice to supply a copy of inquiry report is also born out from the language of Rule 16(12) of 1958 Rules. A plain reading of Rule 16(12) quoted hereinabove shows that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is required to be communicated to the Government servant. This implicit requirement of the principles of natural justice to supply a copy of inquiry report is also born out from the language of Rule 16(12) of 1958 Rules. A plain reading of Rule 16(12) quoted hereinabove shows that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is required to be communicated to the Government servant. The disciplinary authority is also required to supply copy of report of the Inquiring Authority and where the disciplinary authority is not the Inquiring Authority, a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority, unless they have already been supplied to him The words unless they have already been supplied to him are very vital. From these words, it can be inferred that in the scheme of Rule 16, there is a requirement to supply copy of the inquiry report price to the passing of order. The reasons for disagreement are also required to be supplied to the delinquent Government servant. 24. Thus it must be held that Rule 16(10) of 1958 Rules as it stands amended by notification dated 21.6.1983 does not exclude the requirement of supply of copy of the inquiry report and/or findings of the inquiry officer to the delinquent Government servant and an opportunity to him to make representation against the same before final order is passed by the disciplinary authority. The 'disciplinary authority is under an obligation to consider such representation of the delinquent Government servant before passing the order of punishment. 25. The result of the above discussion is that the order of punishment dated 18.5.1984 passed against the petitioner without giving him a copy of the inquiry report and without giving him an opportunity of making his submissions on the findings of the inquiry officer cannot be sustained and is here by declared to be illegal. 26. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.5.1984 is quashed. It shall however be open to the respondents to pass appropriate order afresh in accordance with law, after furnishing a copy of report of the inquiry officer to the petitioner and after giving him an opportunity of making a representation against the same. 27. No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******