Honble KAPUR, J. — The respondent in this appeal was dismissed from Government service on several charge on which enquiry was held and this dismissal was challenged by him in a writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge on 30.07.1991. This decision of the learned Single Judge - has been challenged by the appellant in this special appeal. (2). The respondent was a UDC in the Appellant Organisation Board of Indian Medicine Raj. An enquiry against him was held on as many as 16 charges. The enquiry officer submitted his report and the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal on 1.10.1988. One of the grounds raised in the writ petition was that the petitioner was not given the copy of the enquiry report before passing the order of dismissal and as such he was not given an opportunity of making a representation against the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. This point was argued and reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramjan Khan (1). In this case their Lordships have held that by virtue of 42nd amendment of the Constitution, the only requirement which has been dispensed with is in relation to giving of show cause notice before the proposed punishment. Supply of copy of the enquiry report by the disciplinary authority where the enquiry has been held by a person other than the disciplinary authority is an implicit requirement of principles of natural justice. In view of this it was held that there was a violation of principles of natural justice and also the provisions of Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. In view of this conclusion the other questions raised in the writ petition were not decided and the order of dismissal was quashed, giving a direction to reinstate the petitioner in service. The appellant was given liberty to pass appropriate orders according to law, after giving notice to the respondent to make a representation against the enquiry report. Against this decision the Board organisation has filed this special appeal and at the stage of admission both sides have been heard on the point on which the learned Single Judge has decided the writ petition. (3). We may refer to the relevant provisions on the basis of which the matter is to be decided. Against this decision the Board organisation has filed this special appeal and at the stage of admission both sides have been heard on the point on which the learned Single Judge has decided the writ petition. (3). We may refer to the relevant provisions on the basis of which the matter is to be decided. Article 311 of the Constitution of India was amended by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 and thereafter it reads as under : 311. (1) No person who is a member of civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil service under the Union or State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of these charges: Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty imposed: Provided further that this clause shall not apply- (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) where an authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce his rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry. (c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. (3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final. (3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final. The following words which were part of this Article earlier were deleted : "and where it is proposed, after such inquiry, to impose on him any such penalty, until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed, but only on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry." The object of the deletion of this part is to do away with the second opportunity of making the representation at the stage of penalty after completion of enquiry. This has been considered and it has been so held in Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel (2). (4). Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 1958) provides for the procedure for imposing major penalties and it contains the stage at which the opportunity to show cause has to be given to the employee. Sub rule (10) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 reads as under : "(10)(i) If the Disciplinary authority, having regard to its finding on the charges is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clause (iv) to (vii) of rule 14 should be imposed, it shall- (a) Furnish to the Government servant a copy of the Inquiring Authority and, where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority ; and (b) give a notice stating the penalty proposed to be imposed on him calling upon him to submit within a specified time such representation as he may wish to make on the proposed penalty, provided that such representation shall be based only on the evidence adduced during the inquiry. (ii)......:. (iii)....... (ii)......:. (iii)....... After the amendment in Article 311 by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 in the Constitution sub rule (10) of Rule 16 was substituted by the Notification dated 21.6.1983 and now it reads as under : (10) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on the charges is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of rule 14 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the Government servant, any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed: Provided that in every case in which it is necessary to consult the commission the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the Disciplinary Authority to the Commission for its advise and such advise shall be taken into consideration before making an order imposing such penalty on the Government servant." That part of the rule by which it was provided for furnishing to the Government servant the copy of the report of the enquiry authority has been deleted. (5). In this background it has been argued that after the amendment of Rule 16(10) of the Rules of 1958 and Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the copy of the report of the Enquiry report has to be furnished only when the Government servant makes a request for the same and when it has not been demanded then the Government servant cannot make a grievance. This is such a right which can be waived and it is contended that the decision in the case of Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (3) can have only prospective effect and it will not be applicable to matters which have already been decided. (6). On the other hand the learned counsel for the delinquent has contended that if the decision in the case of Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) is to be given prospective operation then atleast the court cases which have already been decided will not be reopened, but those which are to be decided after this decision are to be based on it. (7). Much has been argued on behalf of both the sides about the applicability and nature of the decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khans case, as to whether it can be followed in the properly of contrary decision of larger Bench. (7). Much has been argued on behalf of both the sides about the applicability and nature of the decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khans case, as to whether it can be followed in the properly of contrary decision of larger Bench. Then attempt has also been made to show as to which is the direct authority which can be said to be applicable to the present case and emphasis, has been made on the principles of natural justice. (8). As the point involved in the case is very important a general notice was given in the cause list and Mr. K.K. Mehrish, Mr. Manish Bhandari, Mr. S.C. agrawal, Mr. Vinrendra Bandhu, Mr. P.V. Calla and Mr. R.K. Pareek have also addressed this court and cited several decisions. It has been argued that amendment in sub-rule (10) of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 became necessary after the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution. It is contended that the several decisions of the Supreme Court itself were not brought to the notice of the Bench which decided Ramzan Khans case, as such it cannot be said to have over ruled other decisions. However, others have argued that the decision in Ramzan Khans case is not the last word and the latest decisions have to be followed. (9). We will refer to the other decisions which have been cited before us and it may be said that after the decision in the case of Mohd. Ramzan Khan similar matters have arisen before the Supreme Court wherein the decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khan has been held to be prospective to be applicable to the matters which have been decided after the decision in Ramzan Khans case. (10). The Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association and others vs. State of Maharashtra (4) has been cited contending that the precedents dealing with the important questions should be respected and it is not proper to scrutinies for the purposes of finding a possible error. (11). In Govindnaik G-.Kalaghatigi vs. West Patent Press Co. Ltd. (5), a Full Bench decision, it was held that if two decisions of the Supreme Court on a question of law cannot be reconciled and one of them is by larger Bench then the decision of the larger Bench whether it is earlier or later in point of time should be followed. Ltd. (5), a Full Bench decision, it was held that if two decisions of the Supreme Court on a question of law cannot be reconciled and one of them is by larger Bench then the decision of the larger Bench whether it is earlier or later in point of time should be followed. If the two decisions by equal number of Judges cannot be reconciled then the latter of the two decisions should be followed. (12). In Union of India vs. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. (6), it was held that a Bench of the court cannot over rule or disapprove the decision of another Bench of equal number of Judges an in case of disagreement the matter should be referred to a larger Bench. (13). In Arti Gupta and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and others (7), it was held that the view of the co-ordinate Bench is binding on the Court and the learned Judges found it difficult to differ from what had been held in the other case. (14). Again in Samru Das vs. State of M.P. (8), it was held that when two Benches of the Supreme Court take different view of law, later view should be followed. (15). In Prakash Amichand Shah vs. State of Gujarat and others (9) it has been held that only principles underlying a decision and not the decision be facts would be binding on subsequent decisions. Unless a decision is later expressly overruled, mere the opinion of the Court that decision had been virtually overruled or in substance overruled by a subsequent decision would not have the effect of overruling it. In such circumstances Courts duty is to ascertain the effect of the subsequent decision on the decision in question. (16). In Ganga Suger Corpn. vs. State of U.P. (10) the principle of Stare decisis was considered and it was laid down as under : "Enlightened litigative policy in the country must accept as final the pronouncements of the Supreme Court by a Constitution Bench unless the subject be of such fundamental. importance to national life or the reasoning is so plainly erroneous in the light of later thought that it is wiser to be ultimately right rather than to be consistently wrong. Stare decisis is not a ritual of convenience but a rule with limited exceptions. importance to national life or the reasoning is so plainly erroneous in the light of later thought that it is wiser to be ultimately right rather than to be consistently wrong. Stare decisis is not a ritual of convenience but a rule with limited exceptions. Pronouncements by Constitution Benches should not be treated so clearly as to be revised frequently. The decisions of the Supreme Court cannot be devalued to brief ephemerality." (17). In Delhi Municipal Corporation vs. Gurnam Kaur (11), it was observed as to what decision of the Supreme Court termed as precedents should be followed. It was observed as under : "It is axiomatic that when a direction or order is made by consent of the parties, the Court does not adjudicate upon the rights of the parties nor lay down any principle. Quotabiiity as law applies to the principle of a case, its ratio decidendi. The only thing in a Judges decision binding as an authority upon a subsequent Judge is the principle upon which the case was decided. Statements which are not part of the ratio decidendi are distinguished as obiter dicta and are not authoritative. The task of finding the principle is fraught with difficulty because without an investigation into the facts, it could not be assumed whether a simitar direction must or ought to be made as a measure of social justice. Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment. This rule has ever since been followed. One of the chief reasons for the doctrine of precedent is that a matter that has once been fully argued and decided should not be allowed to be reopened. The weight accorded to dicta varies with the type of dictum. Mere casual expressions carry no weight at all. Not every passing expression of a Judge, however eminent, can be treated as an ex cathedra statement, having the weight of authority." (18). In S.G.Pharmaceuticals, Divisions of Ambala vs. V.D. Padamwar, President Officer. Third Labour Court, Nagpur and another (12), it has been held that the judgments of Court comprising of the same number of Judges appear to have settled on the view that latest judgment of Bench of same strength has binding force. (19). In Sundaram Pallai and others vs. V.R. Pattabiraman and others (13), it has been held that construction of statutes which would avoid divergence of judicial opinions in preferable. (20). (19). In Sundaram Pallai and others vs. V.R. Pattabiraman and others (13), it has been held that construction of statutes which would avoid divergence of judicial opinions in preferable. (20). On a consideration of these decisions, there is hardly any controversy on this subject and it can be said that in case of divergent view in decisions comprising of the different number of Judges then the decision of the larger Bench has to be followed and when there are equal number of Judges then the latter view is to be followed. When the question arises before the Bench of the Supreme Court itself then the Bench consists of larger number of Judges can over rule the decision. It can also be said that to over rule a decision specific observations to this effect have to be made. (21). In Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra), it has been held that the delinquent employee is entitled to the copy of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer to the disciplinary authority and to make a representation against that and not furnishing a copy of the enquiry report is violative of the principles of natural justice and the final order of punishment is invalid. It has been held that proviso to sub clause (2) of Article 311 of the 42nd Amendment Act is prospective only. It has been held that the supply of the copy of the enquiry report along with commendation, if any, in the matter of proposed punishment to be inflicted would be within the rules of natural justice and the delinquent would therefore be entitled to the supply of a copy thereof. According to this decision 42nd Amendment has not brought about any change in the provision which could be taken as keeping natural justice out of the proceedings. In para 17 of this decision it has been stated as follows: "Contrary conclusion, if any reached by High Courts or any two Benches of the Supreme Court will no longer be taken to be laying down good law, but this ruling shall have prospective application and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this ground." (22). Kailash Chander Asthana vs. State of U.P. and others (14), is a decision by the Bench of three Judges, which had taken a different view from the view taken in Mohd. Ramzan Khans case (supra). Kailash Chander Asthana vs. State of U.P. and others (14), is a decision by the Bench of three Judges, which had taken a different view from the view taken in Mohd. Ramzan Khans case (supra). This decision was not brought to the notice of the Bench which had given decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khans case. In Mohd. Ramzan Khans case it has been observed that "we have not been shown any decision of a co-ordinate or a larger bench of this Court taking this view". This matter was considered in Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India vs. B. Karunakar (15) and the matter was referred to a larger Bench. (23). In S.P. Viswanathan (1) vs. Union of India (16), the Bench consisting of two Judges of the Supreme Court has held that the decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khans case is prospective as is clear from para 17 of that judgment given prior to the date of vendering of the judgment (November 29, 1990) would not be affected by the decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khans case, even though the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and the order of termination was held to be vitiated but due to the prospective operation of the decision no relief was given to the petitioner. (24). A Full Bench of the Orissa High Court has taken a similar view in Chaitanaya Charan Jain vs. The Tribal Development Coop. Corporation of Orissa (17). In this case reference has been made to para 17 of the judgment in Mohd. Ramzan Khans case. (25). Again in Union of India and others vs. A.K. Chatterjee (18), the decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khans case holding that the employee had a right to get copy of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer to the disciplinary authority and to make representation against it had prospective effect and it would not apply to cases where order of punishment was passed prior to that decision. (26). The matter having been settled by the Supreme Court itself during the pendency of this appeal, we have to see when the order of punishment was passed in this case. (27). The respondent was dismissed from service on 1.9.1988, hence the decision of Mohd. Ramzan Khans case cannot give any assistance to him in the matter of non supply of the report of the enquiry officer. (27). The respondent was dismissed from service on 1.9.1988, hence the decision of Mohd. Ramzan Khans case cannot give any assistance to him in the matter of non supply of the report of the enquiry officer. The writ petition has been decided on this ground alone, relying upon Mohd. Ramzan Khans case, but in view of the subsequent interpretation of this decision that it had prospective operation only and would not apply to cases where the order of punishment was passed prior to the judgment, this appeal deserves to be accepted on this ground. The respondent petitioner has raised a number of grounds in the writ petition but the same were not decided in view of the relief given to the respondent. For deciding the other grounds raised by the respondent in the writ petition the matter has to go back before the learned Single Judge. (28). We therefore allow this appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and held that the dismissal of the petitioner does not stand vitiated on account of non supply of the copy of the report of the enquiry officer, and the writ petition is sent back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the other grounds which have been raised in the petition.