JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition is that the impugned order of dismissal dated 29th October, 1990 contained in Annexure1 passed by opposite party no. 2 is nonest for the reason of the Fact that no inquiry was ever conducted by the Enquiry Officer. After the petitioner has submitted his reply against the chargesheet, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the enquiry report. No evidence was ever led against the petitioner not any person was produced to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner was not given an opportunity to lead evidence. Nobody appeared to confirm the reports referred to in the chargesheet and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses It was further submitted that the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner either before passing of the impugned order of dismissal nor it was furnished alongwith the dismissal order. 2. On 14111990 notice of this petition was accepted on behalf of opposite party no. 2 by Sri N.C. Mehrotra. He was directed to get the record of the inquiry. 3. On 16111990 the record was produced before this Court. After perusing the same Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Mathur indicated in the order that the record did not show any hearing having been conducted after the reply was submitted. The case was ordered to be listed on 19111990. On 19111980 the parties' counsel argued the case on merits. 4. After hearing Mr. S.C. Misra on behalf of the petitioner and Sri N.C. Mehrotra on behalf of the respondents the judgment was reserved. 5. It is more or less admitted that after the petitioner submitted a reply to the chargesheet no proper inquiry as provided under the Rules was ever conducted and the petitioner was not given any hearing before the Enquiry Officer. 6. A reasonable opportunity is a term of well known significance which includes that an opportunity should be given to an employee to cross ex mine the witnesses examined against him and to lead evidence in defence in support of his version. In the present case only a chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner and his explanation was taken. Thereafter the punishing authority straight away passed the order of dismissal. In the present case only a chargesheet was submitted against the petitioner and his explanation was taken. Thereafter the punishing authority straight away passed the order of dismissal. Such type of action is not only in violation of C.C.A. Rules but was also in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as principles of natural justice. The finding has to be arrived at after holding an inquiry by the Enquiry Officer. It is incumbent upon him to conduct the inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Needless to emphasize that in departmental inquiry it is incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to call for the examination of the witnesses and to substantiate the charge against the delinquent thereafter the delinquent deserves to be given a reasonable opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. In case the delinquent wishes to adduce oral or documentary evidence in support of his version, the opportunity must be given to the delinquent. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer should submit his report. The oral inquiry can only be dispensed with in case the delinquent himself asks for the decision of the inquiry on the basis of the documentary evidence on record but in the instant case the principles of natural justice, fair play and equity have been trampled down. The Rules governing the conditions of service of the petitioner pertaining to departmental inquiries as well as tiie provisions contained in Article 311 of the Constitution ha\ e been flouted. 7. Furthermore the impugned order of punishment is vitiated for the reason of the fact that the copy of the report of the inquiry was not furnished to the petitioner. In the case of Ram Krishna Bansal v. State of U.P. and another reported in 1990 selected Civil decision 571 a Division Bench consisting of myself and Hon'ble Mr. 7. Furthermore the impugned order of punishment is vitiated for the reason of the fact that the copy of the report of the inquiry was not furnished to the petitioner. In the case of Ram Krishna Bansal v. State of U.P. and another reported in 1990 selected Civil decision 571 a Division Bench consisting of myself and Hon'ble Mr. Justice U.C. Srivastava, as he then was, relying upon the principles enunciated in B.P. Chaurasia v. State of U.P. & others (1983(1) LCD169), Onkar Singh v. State of U.P. and another (1984 (2) LCD396) and Avtar Singh v. State of U.P. (1989 (7) LCD 199) indicated as under: We find considerable force in this contention that the disclosure of the inquiry report and giving an opportunity of defense against adverse finding of report is a part of reasonable opportunity provided in Rule 55 of the Civil Services Classification of Control and Appeal Rules and the order is vitiated for this reason. It was further held: As a copy of the inquiry report has not been given to the petitioner the order of punishment cannot be said to be duly communicated to him to either file an appeal or memorial before the higher divisional forums and other forums which may be available to him,' 8. Very recently Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ease of Union of India v. Mohammad Ramzan Khan reported in Judgment Today 1990 (4) SC 456 indicated: 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) of the Constitution has been abolished by the amendment, the delinquent is still entitled to represent against the Conclusion of the enquiry officer holding that 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 enquiry officer in the matter of imposition of punishment furnishing a copy of the report becomes necessary and to have the proceeding completed by using some material behind the back or the delinquent is a position not countenanced to fair procedure while by law application of natural justice could be totally rule out or truncated. Nothing had been done here which could betaken as getting natural justice out of the proceedings and the series of pronouncement of this Court making Rules of natural justice applicable to such an inquiry are not affected by 42nd amendment. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that supply of a copy of the inquiry report alongwith the recommendations if any in the matter of proposed punishment to be inflicted would be within the rules of natural justice and the delinquent could, therefore, be entitled to the supply of the copy thereof. The 42nd amendment has not brought about any change in this position. We make it clear that wherever there has been an Enquiry Officer and he has furnished the report of the disciplinary inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of 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 such report would amount to violation of natural justice and make the final order liable to charge hereinafter. We, however, clarify that this decision will not preclude the disciplinary authority from revision of the proceedings and continuing with it in accordance with law from the stage of supply of inquiry report in cases where dismissal or removal was the punishment. 9. In view of the fact that no proper inquiry as contemplated under the Rules governing the conditions of the service of the petitioner and in accordance with the provisions contained in Article 311 of the Constitution and principles of natural justice was ever conducted, the impugned order of dismissal contained in Annexure1 dated 29th October, 1990 passed by opposite party no. 2 is vitiated and deserves to be quashed. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order of dismissal dated 29th October, 1990 contained in Annexure1 passed by opposite party no 2 issued and opposite parties are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits with immediate effect. However it will be open for the opposite parties to hold a fresh inquiry if they so desire in accordance with law. However, no order is made as to costs.