Judgment D.S. Sinha, J. 1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, at length and in detail. 2. Ghisai Lal, the petitioner, was a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force. He was accused of two charges, under section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949. He was, therefore, served with the requisite charge-sheet dated 10th January, 1985. Under the orders of the Commandant, the respondent no. 5, the inquiry was conducted by Sri Lal Chand Yadav, Ex-Deputy Superintendent of Police. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, on 4th March, 1985, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the respondent no. 5. 3. Thereafter, the respondent no. 5, exercising powers under Rule 27(a) of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1955, Hereinafter called the Rules, passed an order dated 5th March 1985 whereby he inflicted upon the petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service. The order dated 5th March, 1985, aforesaid, is to be found on record as Annexure 7 to the petition. 4. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred appeal under Rule, 28 of the Rules. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 21st August, 1985. Then the petitioner filed a revision under Rule 29 of the Rules. The revision was also dismissed on 27th March, 1986. As a last resort the petitioner preferred a review-cum-mercy petition before the Director General. Central Reserve Police Force. The review-cum-mercy petition was also rejected. Hence this petition. Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the order of the respondent no. 5 dated 5th March, 1985, dismissing the petitioner from service, is bad in law on the following two counts : (a) the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 4th March, 1985 ; and (b) the punishing authority, namely, the respondent no. 5, passed the order without recording his findings which was imperative. 5. In support of his first contention, Sri Singh places reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Union of India v. Mohd. 5, passed the order without recording his findings which was imperative. 5. In support of his first contention, Sri Singh places reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 , and to buttress his second contention he places reliance upon sub-clause (6) of clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules. 6. A counter affidavit, sworn by Sri O.P.S. Malik, Deputy Inspector General 'of Police, C.R.P.F., Allahabad, has been filed on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 4. In the counter affidavit the factum of non supply of the inquiry report to the petitioner has not been disputed. 'However, it is pleaded that there was no provision for supply of the copy of inquiry report to the delinquent under the Rules. With regard to the attack on the impugned order on the ground of failure to record a finding by the respondent no. 5, it is pleaded in the counter affidavit that "the Enquiry Officers and Commandant have given their finding after taking into consideration the evidence and other factors and after considering all evidences and the statements recorded and have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of charges levelled against him." The Court is afraid, the impugned order cannot be set aside on the strength of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan. Aftar stating the law with regard to the requirement of furnishing a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent, in paragraph 17 of the decision, the Honourable Supreme Court rules thus :- "17. There have been several decisions in different High Courts which, following the Forty- Second Amendment, have taken the view that it is no longer necessary to furnish a copy of the inquiry report to delinquent officers. Even on some occasions this Court has taken that view. Since we have reached a different conclusion the judgments in the different High Courts taking the contrary view must be taken to be no longer laying down good law. We have not been shown any decision of a coordinate or a longer Bench of this Court taking this view. Even on some occasions this Court has taken that view. Since we have reached a different conclusion the judgments in the different High Courts taking the contrary view must be taken to be no longer laying down good law. We have not been shown any decision of a coordinate or a longer Bench of this Court taking this view. Therefore, the conclusion to the contrary reached by any two-Judge Bench in this Court will also no longer be take to be laying down good law, but this shall have prospective application and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this ground." (Emphasis supplied) It is to be noticed that the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court was rendered on 20th November, 1990 while the order impugned herein was passed on 5th March, 1985, and was affirmed by all the relevant authorities as long back as in 1987. Thus, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is not open to challenge on the ground of non furnishing of the inquiry report to him. 7. The second point, namely, the failure on the part of the respondent no. 5 to record his findings before passing the order of punishment, in the opinion of the, Court, has force. Sub-clause (6) of Clause (C) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules reads as under : "(6) If the Commandant has himself held the enquiry, he shall record his findings and pass orders where he has power to do so. If the enquiry has been held by any officer other than the Commandant, the officer conducting the enquiry shall forward his report together with the proceedings, to the Commandant, who shall record his-findings and pass orders, where he has power to do so." (Emphasis supplied) 8. From language employed in the above provision it is apparent that the requirement of recording of his own findings by the Commandant, before passing the order either on the basis of the enquiry conducted by himself or cm the basis of the report of the officer conducting enquiry under his orders, is imperative. The Commandant is obliged to record his own findings before passing the orders imposing punishment upon the delinquent. The impugned order of punishment was passed by the respondent no. 5 on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer without recording, his own findings. The Commandant is obliged to record his own findings before passing the orders imposing punishment upon the delinquent. The impugned order of punishment was passed by the respondent no. 5 on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer without recording, his own findings. He tried to discharge the obligation of recording of his own findings by making casual observation that lie had carefully gone through the departmental enquiry proceedings and all vital evidence adduced during the course of enquiry and was in agreement with the findings, of the departmental Inquiry Officers and that he was of the opinion that the Charges against- the petitioner were fully proved. It will be appropriate to notice the relevant paragraph from the impugned order which is extracted below : "The undersigned has carefully gone through the Departmental Enquiry proceeding and all vilal evidence adduced during the course of enquiry agree with the findings of the D.E.O. and undersigned of the firm opinion that the articles of charge I and all stands fully proved against the delinquent No. 660170503 constable Ghisai Lal of A/39 Bn. CRPF. I, therefore, feel that No. 660170503 Constable Ghisai Lal is not desirable person to be retained as a Constable in a disciplined Force." 9. The statement of the respondent no. 5, quoted above, in the opinion of the Court, does not satisfy the legal requirement of recording findings envisaged in sub-clause (6) of-Clause (c) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Rules. Recording of Finding, in the realm of law, means recording of conclusions reached after examination, consideration, deliberation and reflection of relevant facts and law applicable. The purpose of recording the findings is to exhibit application of mind. Non application of mind vitiates findings and the order based thereon. It is obvious that before passing the impugned order of punishment, the Commandant did not record his own findings with regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Mere expression of agreement with the report of the Inquiry Officer cannot amount to recording of the findings by the Commandant. 10. For the reasons stated above the impugned order of punishment is clearly invalid and cannot be sustained. It must perish. Since the impugned order of punishment dated 5th March, 1985 is illegal and has to perish, the subsequent orders passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority fall-through automatically. 10. For the reasons stated above the impugned order of punishment is clearly invalid and cannot be sustained. It must perish. Since the impugned order of punishment dated 5th March, 1985 is illegal and has to perish, the subsequent orders passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority fall-through automatically. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 5th March, 1985 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition), 21st August, 1985 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), 27th March, 1986 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition), and the order dated 24th October, 1986 (Annexure-14 A to the writ petition), passed by the respondents no. 5, 4, 3 and 2 respectively, are quashed. The petitioner shall be deemed to have continued in service throughout with all consequential benefits. However, it is clarified that this judgment wilt not preclude the relevant disciplinary authority to proceed in the matter de novo, in accordance with law. 11. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.