JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged legality of the orders dated 5.2.91 issued by the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust. Ajmer, whereby a penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs. 5,583/- was imposed on him. He has also challenged order dated 23.9.91 by which he has been dismissed from service on the order of the Chairman of the Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer. 2. The case set out in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as LDC in Urban Improvement Trust (for Short 'UIT'), Ajmer with effect from 20.1.75. An enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958 was initiated against him, He submitted application dated 8.5.86 along with a list of documents and sought permission for inspection of those documents. According to him, the documents were not made available to him. He has not been afforded opportunity of hearing/defence. By an order dated 17.10.86 he was placed under suspension. The suspension continued till 15.3.89 when it was revoked. As a result of the disciplinary enquiry, which according to the petitioner was not held in accordance with the provisions of 1958 Rules and the principles of natural justice, the Secretary, UIT issued an order on 15.2.91 and imposed a penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 15 of 1958 Rules and raised several contentions in his memorandum of appeal. Without deciding the appeal, the appellate authority forced the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 5583/- by making an order dated 13.8.91. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 23.9.91 has been communicated to the petitioner. This order makes a reference to the decision of the chairman of UIT, Ajmer, removing the petitioner from service. 3. The petitioner's grievance is that the enquire has not been held in accordance with the provisions of 1958 Rules in as much as he was not allowed reasonable opportunity of inspection of records. He was not supplied with the copy of enquiry report. He was not given the copy of enquiry report before order of punishment dated 15.2.91 was passed by the Secretary of UIT. The procedure for examination of the witnesses was also in contravention of the principles of natural justice. He was not supplied with the copy of enquiry report. He was not given the copy of enquiry report before order of punishment dated 15.2.91 was passed by the Secretary of UIT. The procedure for examination of the witnesses was also in contravention of the principles of natural justice. No notice containing a proposal for enhancement of the punishment was issued to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before the appellate authority passed the order for imposition of enhanced penalty against the petitioner. 4. In reply to the petition, the Respondent have stated that serious charges were levelled against the petitioner. A regular disciplinary enquiry was held. The petitioner was afforded full opportunity of defending himself. The Respondent has stated that there has been a complete compliance of the procedure prescribed by Rule 16 of 1958 Rules. The petitioner has not been put to any prejudice. The Chairman gave an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before deciding the appeal. A copy of the order passed by the appellate authority on 16.9.91 has also been placed on record. 5. Shri B.L. Samdaria, learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised several contentions in support of the writ petition, but in my opinion, it is not necessary to deal with all those contentions because the writ petition can be disposed of on a short ground. Shri Samdaria argued that before enhancing the punishment imposed by the Secretary of UIT, no notice was given to the petitioner by the Chairman of the Trust. He was not called upon to give his explanation in respect of any proposal for enhancement of the punishment. He had no occasion to defend himself against any inatitive decision of the Chairman to impose the penalty of removal from service. Thus, the decision of the Chairman is violative of the principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of 1958 Rules. Learned Counsel for Respondent UIT on the other hand argued that the petitioner was heard by the Chairman on the quantum of punishment before order dated 16.6.91 was passed by the Chairman whereby penalty of removal from service has been imposed on the petitioner. Thus, there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. Learned Counsel for Respondent UIT on the other hand argued that the petitioner was heard by the Chairman on the quantum of punishment before order dated 16.6.91 was passed by the Chairman whereby penalty of removal from service has been imposed on the petitioner. Thus, there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. I have carefully gone through the order dated 16.9.91 as well as the order dated 23.9.91 along with other documents which have been placed on record. It is an admitted position that against the penalty, the petitioner had filed appeal before the Chairman. The Chairman initially passed an order on 13.8.91 and directed that before the appeal is decided, the petitioner should deposit the amount which was embazzeled. The Chairman, therefore, gave a direction that the petitioner should deposit the amount with the UIT. The order dated 16.2.91 does not contain any stipulate on that any notice was given to the petitioner for enhancement of the punishment from one of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect to that of removal from service. The order dated 23.9.91 also does not speak of any such notice having been given to the petitioners Provision of Rule 30(2) of 1958 Rules clearly lays down that no order imposing enhanced penalty shall be passed unless the appellant is given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced penalty. Thus, in passing of the order dated 16.9.91, which has been communicated to the petitioner by the Secretary of the Trust vide order dated 23.9.91, the Chairman of the UIT, Ajmer has acted in clear violation of Rule 30 of 1958 Rules and also the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order passed by the Chairman of the Trust in appeal is liable to be declared as illegal and quashed Shri Samdaria argued that the copy of enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner before penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed on him. According to him, penalty of stoppage of grade increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment and, therefore, as per the law laid down in Union of India v. Mohd. According to him, penalty of stoppage of grade increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment and, therefore, as per the law laid down in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 and also by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1285/85 Tej Karan Jain v. State of Rajasthan decided on 8.2.91 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 473/91 Chandmal Saraswat v. State of Rajasthan decided on 25.9.91 , it was obligatory for the authorities of the Trust to have given a copy of the enquiry report, to the petitioner to have given him an opportunity of hearing. In my opinion, since the order of appellate authority have been found to be illegal, it is not necessary to decided this question. The petitioner is free to raise this contention along with other contentions and there is no reason to think that the appellate authority will not objectively consider the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner while deciding appeal. 7. The Writ Petition of the petitioner succeeds and it is hereby allowed. Order dated 16.9.91 passed by the Chairman of Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer which has been communicated to the petitioner on 23.9.91 by the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer, is declared as illegal and he same is quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service with consequential benefits. The appeal of the petitioner be decided afresh in accordance with the rules. The appellate authority shall take into consideration the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner while deciding the appeal. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ Allowed. *******