Order The petitioner in this application who was an Under Secretary in the Bihar State Electricity Board ('the Board' for short), has been given the punishment of compulsory retirement following a disciplinary proceeding on certain charges of gross misconduct against him. Although the order under challenge is shown to have been issued by order of the Board vide resolution dated 20.8.92 (copy at Annexure 6), it is an admitted position that the order of compulsory retirement was passed by the Chairman of the Board. In para 18 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4, it is unequivocably stated that the impugned order of compulsory retirement was passed by the Chairman of the Board. 2. Dr. S.N. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on two grounds; first, that the order of punishment was unsustainable in law for the reason that it was passed without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner as required in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India vs. Md. Ramzan Khan ( AIR 1991 S.C. 471 ). He secondly contended that in case of the petitioner the competent authority to impose a punishment amounting to removal from service was the Board and the Chairman had no authority to pass such an order. 3. Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents candidly admitted that no copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and agreed that in view of the Supreme Court decision, the matter had to go back to the disciplinary authority for a reconsideration from that stage. 4. This takes us to the question to whom the matter is to be remitted and whether the Chairman or the Board is to be directed to take a fresh decision in the petitioner's case. In other words, we are required to consider Dr. Jha's second contention that it was the Board and not the Chairman who was competent to pass an order of punishment amounting to removal from service against the petitioner. Mr. Kishore, it may be noted at this stage, that by 'virtue of the Board's delegation it was the Chairman who was competent to pass an order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner. 5. Dr. Mr. Kishore, it may be noted at this stage, that by 'virtue of the Board's delegation it was the Chairman who was competent to pass an order of compulsory retirement against the petitioner. 5. Dr. Jha's contention is based on two premises; his first premise, a legal one, is that the punishment of compulsory retirement is, in all respects, equal to the punishment of removal from service and his second premise, one of fact, is that the post of Under Secretary is equal to that of the Executive Engineer. Counsel for the Board strongly disputes the claim that the post of Under Secretary is equal to that of Executive Engineer. According to him, the post of Joint Secretary is equal to that of Executive Engineer and the post of Under Secretary is equal only to that of Assistant Electrical Engineer. 6. We are not required to go into this question of fact in detail as we are of the opinion that Dr. Jha's first contention itself is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. It is an agreed position that the provisions of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules have been adopted by the Board and those are fully applicable to its employees including the petitioner. Rules 49 of the Classification Rules enumerates punishments in the following manner : "49. The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon members of the services comprised in any of the classes (1) to (5) specified in Rule 14, namely: (i) Censure. (ii) Withholding of increments or promotion, including stoppage at an efficiency bar. (iii) Reduction to a lower post of timescale, or to a lower stage at timescale. (iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government by negligence or breach of orders. (v) Suspension. (vi) Removal from the civil service of the Crown, which does not disqualify from future employment. (vii) Dismissal from the civil service of the Crown, which ordinarily disqualifies from future employment." From the above, it is manifest that under the Classification Rules, the two punishments of compulsory retirement and removal from service are distinctly separate. This has to be borne in mind while appreciating submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner in this regard. 8. Dr. (vii) Dismissal from the civil service of the Crown, which ordinarily disqualifies from future employment." From the above, it is manifest that under the Classification Rules, the two punishments of compulsory retirement and removal from service are distinctly separate. This has to be borne in mind while appreciating submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner in this regard. 8. Dr. Jha invited our attention to clause 16 of the Bihar State Electricity Board (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1973 dealing with the matter to be placed before the Board. He cited sub-clause (6) of clause 16 of the Regulations which is in the following terms : Proposals for constituting Selection or Recruitment Committees (or both) for different categories of posts of the rank of Executive Engineer and equivalent and above. 9. He also cited sub-clauses (10) and (11) which are as under: (10) Proposals for appointment to the posts of Executive Engineer/Deputy Supdt. of Power Plants, Deputy Controller, Deputy Director of Accounts and any other post, the starting pay of which is not less than that of any of the aforesaid posts whether by direct recruitment or promotion or by deputation. Power to make appointment of other officers may be delegated by the Board to the authorities as may be prescribed by the Board from time to time. (11) Proposals relating to dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of Officers who have been appointed by the Board. (emphasis added) 10. On the basis of this Dr. Jha submitted that the Board being the appointing authority in respect of Executive Engineer and other equivalent posts the power to remove or compulsorily retire them from service would also lie only with the Board. 11. In this regard, it is to be noted that by another notification dated 27.7.83 (copy at Annexure 'B') the Board, in exercise of its powers under section 79 (c) of the Electricity Supply Act. 1948 delegated the following powers to the Chairman of the Board : (a) to award all punishments, except discharge, dismissal and removal from service of the Board on the officers upto the rank of Executive Engineers and equivalent ranks. (b) to award punishment of warning and censure on the officers of the rank of Supdt. Engineer and Chief Engineer and equivalent ranks. (b) to award punishment of warning and censure on the officers of the rank of Supdt. Engineer and Chief Engineer and equivalent ranks. It has been noted above that in terms of rule 49 of the Classification Rules, the two punishments of removal from service and compulsory retirement are distinctly different. Under the 1973 Regulations the power to impose punishments of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement on officers of the rank of Executive Engineer and equivalent posts lay with the Board. In 1983 however, the Board delegated some of its power to the Chairman but made a qualification that upto the rank of Executive Engineer and equal ranks, the Chairman would award all punishments except discharge, dismissal and removal from service. It is to be noted that the punishment of compulsory retirement which is distinctly different in terms of rule 49 of the Classification Rules was not included in the qualifications made in the 1983 delegation. The simple inference, therefore, would be that the power to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement upto the rank of Executive Engineer and equivalent ranks has been delegated to the Chairman. Dr. Jha, however, contended that notwithstanding the separate enumeration of the two punishments under rule 49 of the Classification Rules, the punishment of removal from service must be deemed to include the punishment of compulsory retirement as the two were same and identical for all purposes. In support of his contention, learned counsel relies upon a Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 S.C. 1416 . In para 55 of this decision, there is the following passage on which Dr. Jha places reliance; "None of these three Articles (namely, Article; 309, 310 and 311) sets out the grounds for dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a Government servant or for imposition of any other penalty upon him or states what those other penalties are. These are matters which are left to be dealt with by Acts and rules made under Article 309. There are two clauses and penalties in service jurisprudence, namely, minor penalties and major penalties. Amongst the minor penalties are censure, withholding of promotion and withholding of increments of pay. Amongst major penalties are dismissal or removal from service, compulsory retirement and reduction in rank. There are two clauses and penalties in service jurisprudence, namely, minor penalties and major penalties. Amongst the minor penalties are censure, withholding of promotion and withholding of increments of pay. Amongst major penalties are dismissal or removal from service, compulsory retirement and reduction in rank. Minor penalties do not affect the tenure of a Government servant but the penalty of dismissal or removal does because these two penalties bring to an end the service of a Government servant. It is also now well established that compulsory retirement by way of penalty amounts to removal from service. So this penalty also affects the tenure of a Government servant. Reduction in ranks does not 'eliminate the employment' of a Government servant, and it would, therefore, be difficult to say that it affects the tenure of a Government servant. It may, however, be argued that it does bring to an end the holding of office in a particular rank and from that point of view it affects the Government servant's tenure in the rank from which he is reduced. It is unnecessary to decide this point because Article 311 (2) expressly gives protection as against the penalty of reduction in rank also." (emphasis added) We fail to see how the aforesaid passage helps the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Reading the passage in its context, it states that compulsory retirement amounts to removal from service because it bring to a premature end the service of a Government servant and this affects his tenure. It does not say that it would not be open to the disciplinary authority to retain the power to impose certain punishments and to delegate the power to impose some other punishments to an authority subordinate to it. This is exactly what has been done in this case. The Board has retained with itself the power to impose the punishments of dismissal and removal from service and has delegated the power to impose other punishments including compulsory retirement to the Chairman. We are not aware of any bar in making such a delegation. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Chairman of the Board was fully competent to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner and the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity on that score. 12. We are not aware of any bar in making such a delegation. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Chairman of the Board was fully competent to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner and the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity on that score. 12. The order under challenge, however, is to be set aside on the ground that it was passed without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner along with the second show cause notice. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order of punishment as contained in Annexure 6 and remit the matter back to the Chairman with a direction that a copy of the enquiry report along with the second show cause notice be supplied to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner will submit his reply to the show cause within three weeks thereafter and then the Chairman would pass an order after considering the petitioner's reply in accordance with law. 13. This application is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.