JUDGMENT Vijay Bahuguna, J. - On 12th August, 1992 I allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders dated 1-7-1991 and 17-10-1991 for the reasons to be given subsequently. Now I am giving the reasons. 2. In the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner has challenged the legality of the impugned order dated 1st July, 1991 by means of which the services of the Petitioner were terminated and the appellate order dated 17th October, 1991, dismissing the appeal of the Petitioner. 3. The facts in brief are that the Petitioner was working as a Senior Engineer in the Bharat Pump and Compressors Limited, which is a Government of India undertaking. On the 24th of November, 1988, a charge-sheet was served upon the Petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken against him. The charge against the Petitioner was that he unauthorisedly attempt to remove 4 liters of Enamel paint belonging to the Company on the 18th of October, 1988 at 4.00 P.M. The charge was that the Petitioner asked Jasbir Singh constable to get the Enamel Paint from the Almirah but at the instance of Security Guard Sri Verma, the attempt of the Petitioner was foiled. 4. The Petitioner submitted a reply on 1-12-1988. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed and on the report of the enquiry officer the services of the Petitioner were terminated and the appeal filed against that order was dismissed. 5. Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the appellate authority relied OB the statement of Jasbir Singh in dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has categorically stated in paragraph 29 of the writ petition that a copy of the statement of Jasbir Singh was never furnished to him during the course of the disciplinary proceedings. As such he was deprived of an opportunity to cross-examine Jasbir Singh, who was a necessary witness. By placing reliance on the statement of Jasbir Singh, without a copy of the same being supplied to the Petitioner, the appellate authority has caused great prejudice to the Petitioner and as such the order is in breach of principles of natural justice. As such he was deprived of an opportunity to cross-examine Jasbir Singh, who was a necessary witness. By placing reliance on the statement of Jasbir Singh, without a copy of the same being supplied to the Petitioner, the appellate authority has caused great prejudice to the Petitioner and as such the order is in breach of principles of natural justice. He further contended that the enquiry report was not supplied to the Petitioner as a result of which he could not make an effective representation and that the management placed reliance on the statement given by the Petitioner before the enquiry commenced in spite of the fact that the same was resiled by him during the course of the disciplinary proceedings. 6. It is not disputed that a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the Petitioner. The stand taken by the Company is that under the rules it was not necessary to supply a copy of the enquiry report. The Petitioner has been deprived of his valuable right of receiving a copy of the inquiry report to enable him to point out the anomalies therein before the finding about the guilt was recorded by the disciplinary authority. The findings recorded by the enquiry officer become infused with life only when the Disciplinary Authority applies his mind to the material which inter alia consists of the report of the Enquiry Officer along with the evidence and the record etc. If, therefore, the basic material comprising of the report of the enquiry officer which has been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority for holding that the delinquent is guilty as per the view expressed by his delegate, namely, enquiry authority, is not made available to the delinquent then it is apparent that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. Can it be said that the delinquent had an opportunity to address the mind of the disciplinary authority who alone in reality found him guilty ? It is cardinal principle of natural justice that no order to the prejudice of a person should be passed without affording him an opportunity to represent. The principles of natural justice are an integral part of Article 14 of the Constitution to ensure fair play at action. It is cardinal principle of natural justice that no order to the prejudice of a person should be passed without affording him an opportunity to represent. The principles of natural justice are an integral part of Article 14 of the Constitution to ensure fair play at action. The report of the enquiry officer was the necessary document which should have been furnished to the Petitioner and the failure to do so renders the termination order bad in law as passed in total breach of principles of natural justice. The failure of the Company of furnish a copy of the report of the enquiry officer to the Petitioner before passing the order of termination renders the action illegal. 7. This Court is further of the opinion that the punishment awarded to the Petitioner is excessive and not commensurate with the charges levelled against him. The Petitioner was a Senior Officer of the Company and has unblemished record of service. As no financial loss was caused to the Company the punishment awarded is arbitrary. 8. In the over all facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment awarded is excessive and as such the order of Respondents in terminating the services of the Petitioners is set aside. The Petitioner has been suspended in 1988 and his services were terminated in the year 1991. 9. The Petitioner shall be reinstated in service ; but in the facts and circumstances of the case the Petitioner shall be entitled to only 75% of his back wages.