JUDGMENT S.N. Sahay, J. - The petitioner was employed as a Section Officer (Watches) by M/S Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. respondent. He was served with a charge sheet dated 4th September, 1981 and an enquiry was held into the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges of indulging in corrupt practice with an intention to obtain illegal gratification. He also found that the petitioner had committed disobedience to the order of a Regional Sales Officer, New Delhi in not handing over charge of the Lucknow Show Room to Sri S. V. Mansukhani, Section Officer on the morning of 27th July, 1981. The Deputy General Manager agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and by order dated 31st March, 1982 directed that the petitioner be discharged from the service of the company under clause 1717 of the Hindustan Machine Tools Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules with immediate effect reserving the rights of the Company to recover any amount due from him. The period of suspension of the petitioner from 25th September 1981 to date was also confirmed. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Executive Director of the Company by order dated 15th May, 1982. Hence this writ petition. 2. The first ground on which the impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner is that the report of the Enquiry Officer was not supplied to the petitioner and no opportunity was given to him to show cause against the same before passing the impugned order and so the principles of natural justice have been violated. In Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588 it has been held that the report of the Enquiry Officer is an adverse material if the Enquiry Officer records a finding of guilt and proposes a punishment so far as the delinquent is concerned. In a quasi judicial matter if a 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. The above decision was followed by this Court in Sarfaraj Ali v. U.P. S. R. T. C. 1991(9) LCD 473. The above decision was followed by this Court in Sarfaraj Ali v. U.P. S. R. T. C. 1991(9) LCD 473. It was observed that a delinquent employee would be entitled to get a copy of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and if the copy of the findings have not been supplied to him, the ultimate order of punishment inflicted upon him would be vitiated. 3. In Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case, cited above, the main question was whether with the alteration of the provisions of Article 311(2) under the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution doing away with the opportunity of showing cause against the proposed punishment, the delinquent has also his right to be entitled to a copy of the report of enquiry in the disciplinary proceedings. This question was answered in the negative, but it was held that supply of a copy of the enquiry report alongwith the recommendation, if any, in the matter of proposed punishment to be inflicted within the rules of natural justice arid the delinquent will, therefore, be entitled to the supply of a copy thereof and that the 42nd Amendment has not brought about any change in this position. In S.P. Vishwanathan v. Union of India Supp. (2) SCC 269 it has, however, been held that the decision given in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case was given a prospective effect and will not affect the orders passed prior to the date of rendering of the judgment (21st November 1990) as would be clear from para 17 of the judgment. 4. The petitioner is an employee of a Corporation and the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution are not ipso facto applicable to him. The question relating to the effect of 42nd Amendment on the rights of parties under Article 311 of the Constitution does not arise. The obligation of the Punishing Authority to supply copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent before passing any order of punishment is part of natural justice, as the report of the Enquiry Officer constitutes an adverse material against the delinquent. The law laid down in this behalf as in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case is not open to doubt and applies to all proceedings in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary in the rules governing the conduct of disciplinary proceedings. The law laid down in this behalf as in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case is not open to doubt and applies to all proceedings in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary in the rules governing the conduct of disciplinary proceedings. Rule 19 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of the Company, referred to above lays down the procedure for disciplinary action. When the competent authority is satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the employee, he may issue a chargesheet under rule 19.1 specifying the misconduct and asking for an explanation of the employee, after receiving the explanation from the employee and if the explanation is not satisfactory and Officer of the Company is to be appointed as Enquiry Officer under rule 19.2 to enquire into the alleged misconduct. Rule 19.3 provides that the Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry shall put up his findings to the competent authority and after considering the findings of the Enquiry Officer the competent authority shall take a decision regarding the quantum of punishment. If the competent authority decides to impose the punishment of dismissal from service, he shall obtain the prior sanction of the Chairman and Managing Director or the other authorities specified in the rules. Under rule 19.4 the aggrieved employee may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority against the decision of the competent authority. There is absolutely no provision in rule 19 with regard to the manner in which the enquiry is to be conducted. The matter is left to the discretion of the Enquiry Officer. In the absence of any specific provision, it must be held that the Enquiry Officer shall conduct the enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Since the rule of natural justice regarding supply of enquiry report has not been specifically excluded, it must be held that the Punishing Authority is bound to supply a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent before proceeding in the matter so that the delinquent may, if he so desires, make a representation against it. Since the rule of natural justice regarding supply of enquiry report has not been specifically excluded, it must be held that the Punishing Authority is bound to supply a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent before proceeding in the matter so that the delinquent may, if he so desires, make a representation against it. The impugned order dated 31st March 1982, which is contained in Annexure2 to the writ petition, will show that after making a reference to the findings of the Enquiry Officer, it has been observed that "we are satisfied that the misconducts of indulging in corrupt practices with a bad intention to obtain illegal gratification by misusing the official position have been proved in the enquiry and you are found guilty of the charges levelled against you." No reasons have been given in support of this conclusion and it is not indicated that the Punishing Authority applied his mind independently to the proceedings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and came to the above conclusion. The necessity to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and to give him an opportunity of making a representation against the fame cannot be overemphasized. The Appellate Authority has also observed in the order dated 15th May 1982, which is contained in Annexure3 to the writ petition that "I have carefully considered the grounds raised in your appeal and after going through the enquiry papers and the findings of the Enquiry Officer thereon, I find that there is no merit in your appeal and that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on the material available on record." The appellate order also does not contain any reason in support of the above observations. If a copy of the enquiry report had been made available to the petitioner, it would have been possible for him to exercise the right of appeal effectively by controverting the ground on which the findings of the Enquiry Officer were based, The report of the Enquiry Officer has been adopted by the Punishing Authority and the appeal was directed substantially against the report and findings of the Enquiry Officer. The right conferred by the rule 19.4 of the aforesaid rules could not be properly exercised in the absence of the report of the Enquiry Officer. The right conferred by the rule 19.4 of the aforesaid rules could not be properly exercised in the absence of the report of the Enquiry Officer. The observation made by the Appellate Authority that he did not find any reason to interfere with the decision already taken in the matter and that the question of affording an opportunity to the petitioner before a decision regarding the punishment was taken did not arise, cannot be held to be valid in the eyes of law. The contention of the petitioner has got force that the punishment inflicted upon him without furnishing copy of the enquiry report and affording opportunity of making representation against the same has resulted in a violation of the principles of natural justice and has vitiated the impugned order of discharge passed against him. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the enquiry was vitiated inasmuch as copies of documents which were relied upon in support of the charges levelled against him were not furnished. The chargesheet dated 4th September 1981, which is contained in Annexure6 to the counter affidavit, indicates that the charges against the petitioner were that he indiscriminately allotted 231 watches which were 100 % fast moving to M/S Ujjagar Singh and Sons violating the normal practice and policy in allocation of watches, that when he was asked to handover charge of the Lucknow Show Room to Sri S.V. Mansukhani, Section Officer on 27th July 1981, he (petitioner) instead of handing over charge to Sri S.V. Mansukhani immediately made two allotments of 375 and 179 fast moving watches to M/S India Watch and Grammophone Company and that the petitioner did not allot the fast moving watches to M/S Nanak Chand and Company since they did not pay him desired gratification. There is a reference to certain invoices in the chargesheet in support of the first mentioned two charges. The petitioner has contended that the documents which were relied upon in support of the charges, whether mentioned in the chargesheet or not were not supplied to him with the result that he was prejudiced in his defence. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner never made any complaint whatsoever regarding the nonsupply of copies of the relevant documents and did not request for copies of the documents at any time earlier to the commencement of the enquiry proceedings. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner never made any complaint whatsoever regarding the nonsupply of copies of the relevant documents and did not request for copies of the documents at any time earlier to the commencement of the enquiry proceedings. It is also stated that in any event the petitioner has not been prejudiced in any manner as he was given full opportunity during the enquiry proceedings to examine all the relevant documents exhibited at the enquiry and crossexamine the witnesses in respect of those documents. But the record of the enquiry proceedings, copy of which has been filed as Annexure8 to the counter affidavit, indicates that on 11th January 1982 the petitioner did make a request for the supply of copy of letter dated 21st August 1981 and copies of all exhibits till date. It was the duty of the enquiry Officer to ensure that copies of those documents at least which were referred to in the chargesheet itself and such other documents, which were relied upon by the Company in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner, were duly supplied to him. The counter affidavit does not show that all such documents were made available to the petitioner so that it must be held that reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the charges were tot given to the petitioner and the enquiry proceedings were not held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The conclusion is inevitable that the disciplinary proceedings held against the petitioner are vitiated and the impugned orders are illegal and liable to be quashed. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that this Court has no jurisdiction because the Head Office of the Company is at Bangalore. This contention has no force as the petitioner was posted at Lucknow at the time when the chargesheet was served upon him and the enquiry proceedings were held. The cause of action has arisen, at least partly, at Lucknow and this Court has jurisdiction in the matter. The learned counsel has also contended that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the Labour and Industrial Courts. He has submitted that if the petitioner had approached the Labour Court, the matter could have been more fully investigated and appropriate relief might have been given to the petitioner. The learned counsel has also contended that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the Labour and Industrial Courts. He has submitted that if the petitioner had approached the Labour Court, the matter could have been more fully investigated and appropriate relief might have been given to the petitioner. It is well settled that the existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In view of the conclusion arrived at above, the impugned orders are clearly illegal and arbitrary and it would be travesty of justice if the petitioner is compelled to seek the alternative remedy by way of approaching the Labour Court at this stage. When the impugned orders. are manifestly erroneous and illegal it would be in the interest of justice to dispose of the matte? finally. 7. For the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 31st March 1982 and 15th May, 1982 are hereby quarshed. It will be open to the opposite parties to complete the enquiry proceedings according to law in the light of the observations made above. The petitioner shall, however, be reinstated forthwith and shall be paid all salary and allowances due to him in accordance with rules.