JUDGMENT S.H.A. Raza, J. - The main point involved in this petition is as to whether it is incumbent upon the appointing authority to serve to the delinquent with the copy of the entire enquiry report including the proposed punishment. It is the admitted case of the parties that the delinquent was served with the copy of the enquiry report, but that part of the enquiry report in which enquiry officer proposed punishment was not furnished to the petitioner. The enquiry officer had proposed the stoppage of three increment and entry in his character-roll withholding the subsistence allowance. Differing with the proposed punishment, the punishing authority passed the order, removing the petitioner from the services. 2. In this connection the petitioner placed reliance upon Rule 55- A CIVIL Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, which reads as under ' - "After the inquiry against a Government servant has been completed and after the punishment authority has arrived at provisional conclusions in regard to the penalty to be imposed, the Government servant charged shall, if the penalty imposed is dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, be supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiry officer prepared under Rule 55 together with the recommendations, if any, in regard to punishment, made by the officer conducting the enquiry, and be given a notice stating the penalty proposed to be imposed on him and calling upon him to submit, by a particular date which affords him reasonable time, such representation as he may wish to make on the proposed penalty, provided that such representation shall be based on the evidence adduced during the inquiry." Provided ; that "if for sufficient reason, the punishing authority disagrees with any part or whole of the report of the inquiring officer above mentioned, the points of such disagreement together with a brief statement of the grounds thereof shall also be communicated to the Government servant charged." 3. After the 42nd amendment of the Constitution Rule 55-A was deleted with effect from 27-4-1977. It is admitted case of the parties that when the order of dismissal was passed i.e. on 25-4-1977 the said rule was in operation, hence it was incumbent upon the appointing authority to have proceeded with against the petitioner in accordance with the Rule 55-A indicated above. 4. It is admitted case of the parties that when the order of dismissal was passed i.e. on 25-4-1977 the said rule was in operation, hence it was incumbent upon the appointing authority to have proceeded with against the petitioner in accordance with the Rule 55-A indicated above. 4. U.P. Public Services Tribunal by its order dated 9-2-82 contained in Annexure-19 to the writ petition at page-2 while dealing with the matter had given a finding to the effect that; "No doubt the Enquiry Officer bad suggested in his report that he should not allowed the balance of the salary for the suspension period and that three years increment of the petitioner should be with-held and an entry be made in the character-roll. This portion relating to the proposed punishment by the Punishing Authority was not supplied to the petitioner because the Punishing Authority did not agree with it and the charge being serious, it was thought proper to remove the petitioner from service. The Tribunal further indicated in its order ; "It was pointed out to us, that under Rule 55-A of the CCA Rules, full copy of the Enquiry Officers report should have been submitted and as it was not submitted it was vitiated. We do not agree to this proposition." 5. The Tribunal did not agree with the proposition for the reason that Rule 55-A was on the statute book on 25-4-77 when the order of dismissal was passed, though it was deleted on 27-4-77, but in view of the proviso of Rule 55-A the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Punishing Authority could with-hold any portion of the report of the Enquiry Officer. 6. It seems that the Tribunal committed manifest error of law by giving finding to the effect than the Punishing Authority could withhold any portion of the report of Enquiry Officer. 7. As said above the petitioner wag furnished with a copy of the Enquiry Report but the proposed punishment which was indicated by the Inquiry Officer was suppressed and with-held. The Tribunal mis-read and mis-appreciated the proviso to Rule 55-A of the CCA Rules, which has no application to this question. 8. In the case of State of Gujarat v. R.G. Teredesai and another, 1969 SLR 519 Hon'ble Mr. The Tribunal mis-read and mis-appreciated the proviso to Rule 55-A of the CCA Rules, which has no application to this question. 8. In the case of State of Gujarat v. R.G. Teredesai and another, 1969 SLR 519 Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. N. Grover 'as he then was, speaking on behalf of the bench indicated : "In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, 1964 (4) SCR 718 it has been observed that unless the statutory rules or the specific order under which an officer is appointed to hold an inquiry so requires the Enquiry Officer need not make any recommendations as to the punishment which may be imposed on the delinquent officer in the case the charges framed against him are held proved at the enquiry, if however, the enquiry officer makes any recommendations, the said recommendation like his findings on the merit, are intended merely to supply appropriate material for the consideration of the Government. Neither the findings, nor the recommendations are binding on the Government. Now it is correct that the Enquiry Officer is under no obligation or duty to make any recommendations in the matter of punishment to be imposed on the servant against whom the departmental enquiry is held and his function merely is to conduct the enquiry in accordance with the law and to submit the record alongwith his findings or conclusions on the various charges, which have been preferred against the delinquent servant. But if the Enquiry Officer proceeds to recommend that a particular penalty or punishment should be imposed in the light of his findings or conclusions the question is whether the officer concerned should be informed about his recommendations. In other words since such recommendations form part of the record and constitute appropriate material for consideration of the Government it would be essential that, that material should not be withheld from him, so that he could while showing cause against the proposed punishment make a proper representation. The entire object of supplying a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer is to enable the delinquent officer to satisfy the punishing authority that he is innocent, of the charges framed against him and that if the charges are held to have been proved the punishment proposed to be inflicted is unduly severe. The entire object of supplying a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer is to enable the delinquent officer to satisfy the punishing authority that he is innocent, of the charges framed against him and that if the charges are held to have been proved the punishment proposed to be inflicted is unduly severe. If the enquiry officer has also made recommendations in the matter of punishment that is likely to effect the mind of the punishing authority even with regard to penalty or punishment to be imposed on such officer. The requirement of a reasonable opportunity, therefore, would not be satisfied unless the entire report of the Enquiry Officer including his views in the matter of punishment are disclosed to the delinquent servant." 9. In view of the admitted position that copy of the entire enquiry report including that portion where the Enquiry Officer proposed the punishment to be inflicted upon the delinquent was not furnished to the delinquent, the principle of fair play and reasonable opportunity was violated and the delinquent was prejudiced in making representation to the authorities concerned that the punishment proposed could not be inflicted or it was too severe considering the facts and the circumstances of the case. 10. There is another aspect of the matter which requires consideration. The Enquiry Officer had proposed stoppage of three increments, adverse entry into his character-roll and the stoppage of suspension allowance during the period of suspension, but the punishing authority considering the proposed punishment too lenient, differing with the quantum of the punishment proposed, passed extreme penalty of punishment, that is 5 removal from the service. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the proviso to Rule 55-A to Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 the petitioners deserved to be communicated about the same. 12. In the case of Narayan Misra v. State of Orissa, 1969 SLR page-657 Hon The Chief Justice Mr. Hidayatullah as he then was speaking on behalf of the bench indicated ; The Enquiring Officer by the finding dated January 7, 1963, acquitted the appellant of first two charges ; but found him guilty of third charge. He recommended that the appellants be reinstated in service and as punishment he suggested that the period of suspension may be treated as punishment. He recommended that the appellants be reinstated in service and as punishment he suggested that the period of suspension may be treated as punishment. When the matter came before the Conservator of Forests, he called upon the appellant to show cause why he should not be dismissed from Government service. In this notice he expressed the view that the punishment which was proposed was extremely light for such serious offences. The appellant showed cause. The Conservator of Forests did not accept upon the third charge but also upon the other two charges which he held were proved against him. In doing so, he differed from the findings given by the Enquiry Officer. Latter on representations being made to Government, the order of dismissal was modified into one of discharge from service. The appellant filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of discharge from service. His contention was that the order of the Conservator directing that fresh charges be framed against him was not carried out and that the Conservator of Forests when he did rely upon the other two charges of which he had been acquitted and differed from the findings of the Enquiring Officer, ought to have given him an adequate opportunity to explain those charges. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding both the points against the appellant. In This appeal the same two points are urged before us. The first point really hes no force because it would have been useless to frame charges over again as the charges had already been framed. The second enquiry took place on the same charges and there was no point in framing them fresh. We are, however, of opinion that the second ground has substance in it. Although the writ petition did not set this matter out in detail in the way it was presented before us we find that an affidavit was filed on January 31, 1964 by one Radha Mohan Misra in which this point was taken. How that affidavit came to be filed is not explained but it seems to have been received and we do not therefore take this technical point against the appellant. The High Court also seems to have taken this matter in its consideration, because it does refer to the other two charges of which the appellant stood acquitted by the Enquiring Officer. The High Court also seems to have taken this matter in its consideration, because it does refer to the other two charges of which the appellant stood acquitted by the Enquiring Officer. Now if the Conservator of Forests intended taking the charges on which he was acquitted into account, it was necessary that the attention of the appellant ought to have been drawn to this fact and his explanation, if any, called for. This does not appear to have been done. In other words, the Conservator of Forests used, against him the charges of which he was acquitted without warning him that he was going to use them. This is against all principle of fair play and natural justice. If the Conservator of the Forests wanted to use them, he should have apprised him on his own attitude and given him an adequate opportunity. Since that opportunity was not given, the order of Conservator of Forests modified by the State Government cannot be upheld. We accordingly set aside the order and remit the case to the Conservator of Forests for dealing with it in accordance with law. If the Conservator of Forests wants to take into account the other two charges, he shall give proper notice to the appellant intimating to him that those charges would also be considered and afford him an opportunity of explaining them. 13. Although the facts, which were involved in the aforementioned case of Narayan Misra v. State of Orissa, (supra) are not involved in the present case but, however, the principles laid down in the said case are applicable to the facts of the present case as well. Even under proviso to Rule 55-A of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 it was the incumbent upon the appointing authority while disagreeing with any part or whole of the report of the Enquiring Officer, the point or points of such disagreement together with a brief statement thereof of the grounds thereof had to be communicated to the delinquent. U.P. Public Services Tribunal failed and totally ignored to consider this aspect of the matter, hence the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 14. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove the writ petition succeeds. U.P. Public Services Tribunal failed and totally ignored to consider this aspect of the matter, hence the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 14. In view of what has been indicated hereinabove the writ petition succeeds. A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by U.P. Public Services Tribunal contained in Annexure-19 to the writ petition, order of removal of the petitioner from services contained in Annexure-14 to the writ petition as well as the appellate order contained in Annexure-15 to the writ petition, which was merged into the order of removal contained in Annexure-14 is issued. There would be no order as to costs. However the opposite party may proceed in accordance with law.