JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - The petitioner Abdul Wahid in the year 1979-80 while r posted as Assistant Engineer in River Ganga Canal, Irrigation Department was served with a charge-sheet on 24-5-1982 and Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold departmental inquiry against him. The charges against him were that he had spent more amount than was actually sanctioned ; he did not hand over his charge after being transferred and did not hand over the measurement book and got the undesired work completed with respect to canal. 2. The charge-sheet indicated certain documentary evidence upon which the imputation of charges were based. 3. It was averred by the petitioner that on 9-6-1982 he requested the Enquiry Officer to supply all the necessary documentary evidence, sought in the charge-sheet, so that he might be able to give proper reply and indicate as to what evidence he has to led in defence and he may be informed as to who was to be produced as witnesses. He also requested to cross-examine the witnesses which might be adduced against him. He also submitted a short and tentative reply to the charge-sheet stating therein that no charge was made out against him and as such the inquiry deserves to be withdrawn. 4. It was also submitted that the petitioner was never informed of any proceeding nor he was ever communicated in any manner with regard to the development of the alleged inquiry proceedings. It was contended that even after lapse of more than seven years after the submission of the charge-sheet the petitioner did not hear anything whatsoever either from the opposite party or the Enquiry Officer with respect to the development in the inquiry proceedings. He bona fide presumed that the said inqutry was finally dropped but surprisingly after a lapse of more than seven years, on the basis of the alleged charges, without supplying copies of the evidence upon which the imputation of charges were based and without affording him any opportunity of hearing on 27-10-1989 he was removed from service ; the order of removal indicated that on 13-12-1981 the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and after a lapse of about six years without any application of mind the opposite parties passed the order of removal on 27-10-1989. 5. 5. The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. He was not furnished with the copies of the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet despite the request made by him. He was also not given opportunity to produce witnesses and cross-examine the witnesses examined against him and he was also not furnished the copy of the inquiry report hence the entire inquiry proceedings is vitiated as the same is in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India as well as the principles of natural justice. 6. No counter affidavit has been filed by the State on behalf of the opposite parties. On 21-12-90 arguments were heard on the merits of the petition and judgment was reserved. It has been emphasised again and again by this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court in hundreds of the cases decided by them that when a Government servant faces a disciplinary proceeding, he should be afforded reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him. No one facing a departmental inquiry can save himself unless copies of the documents used against him are made available. In the absence of it the petitioner cannot prepare a reply and cannot point out any inconsistency with a view to show that the allegations are incredible, whether or not refusal to supply copies of the statements has resulted in prejudicing an employee facing a departmental inquiry depends upon the facts oil each case. 7. In the present case the impugned order of removal from service of the petitioner contained in Annexure 1 indicate that the Enquiry Officer had conducted the inquiry, considered the explanation of the petitioner and examined the evidence. It appears that the Enquiry Officer have gave an opportunity to the delinquent to give his evidence and in case he want to examine and cross-examine any evidence then he should have here be-quited to furnish to the Enquiry Officer the name and addresses of such witnesses. From the impugned order it is not clear as to whether such particulars were actually afforded to the petitioner or not. From the impugned order it is not clear as to whether such particulars were actually afforded to the petitioner or not. As no counter affidavit has been filed, it cannot be definitely said as to whether any such opportunity was given or not but it has been conceded on behalf of the opposite parties that the copy of the inquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. As non-supply of the inquiry report amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity, there existed no necessity for this Court to give a finding on the other points raised in the writ petition. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Mohammad Ramzan Khan, 1990 Judgment Today (4) SC 456, indicated as under : "Deletion of the second opportunity from the scheme of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution has nothing to do with providing a copy of the report to the delinquent in the matter of making his representation. Even though the second stage of inquiry in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution has been abolished by amendment, the delinquest is still entitled to represent against the collusion of the Enquiry Officer holding that charges or some of the charges are established and holding the delinquent guilty of such charges. For doing away with the effect of the inquiry 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 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 truncated. Nothing has been done here which could be taken as keeping natural justice out of the proceedings and the series of pronouncement of this Court making rules of natural justice to such an inquiry not affected by 42nd Amendment. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that non-supply of copy of the inquiry report 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 .a copy thereof. The 42nd Amendment has not brought about any change in this position. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that non-supply of copy of the inquiry report 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 .a copy thereof. The 42nd Amendment has not brought about any change in this position. We make it clear that where ever there has been an inquiry officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and would also be entitled to make a representation against it and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge hereafter. We would clarify that this position may not preclude the disciplinary authority from revising the proceeding and continuing with it in accordance with law from the stage of supply of the inquiry report in cases where dismissal or removal was the punishment." 8. In view of the fact that the petitioner was not furnished with a copy of the inquiry report the impugned order of dismissal is totally vitiated. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order of removal of the petitioner from service dated 27-10-1989 passed by opposite party contained in Annexure I. A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Assistant Engineer with all consequential benefits is also issued. However, this decision will not preclude the disciplinary authority from revising the proceedings and continuing with it in accordance with law from lire stage of supply of inquiry report. The question as to whether the petitioner deserves to be given the copies of the documents upon which the imputation of charges were based, examine and cross-examine the witnesses in his defence, could be examined by the Enquiry Officer in the light of the observations made above. In the circumstances of the case, no order is made as to costs.