JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who is Ex-Constable of the police department and he was last posted in Police Line, Jaipur has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the grounds interalia that he joined as a constable in the Police Department of the State on 15.4.1969 and after passing probationary period of training, he was confirmed on the said post. It has been contended in the petition that in recognition of his services he earned number of commendation certificates including cash rewards during the said period. It has further been contended that on 16.5.1991 while he was posted at Police Lines, Jaipur, he suddenly fell ill and it was diagnosed as a liver infection as a result of which he was incapacitated from discharging duties and applied for leave for a period of 57 days. The said leave was not sanctioned by the competent authority despite the fact that application was accompanied by medical and fitness certificate of Medical Officer. After recovering from illness, the petitioner presented himself before the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur (respondent No. 4) and submitted a medical certificate in proof of his illness as well as fitness certificate. Instead of considering his case sympathetically the petitioner was placed under suspension on 12.7.1991 by the respondent No. 4. The petitioner challenged his suspension order which was revoked on 25.7.1991 by the said respondent No. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a memorandum containing articles of charge dated 22.8.1991 and an enquiry was proposed to be initiated against the petitioner with regard to two charges levelled against him. The petitioner controverted the said charges by filing his reply on 24.8.1991. An enquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 1.10.1991 by the respondent No. 4. The said enquiry officer submitted a report to the competent authority and on the basis of that report, the impugned order dated 31.12.1991 (Annexure-1) imposing penalty of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner on account of his purported absence from duty for the period of 57 days i.e. from 16.5.91 to 12.7.91. 2. During the course of hearing Mr. 2. During the course of hearing Mr. Ashok Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently assailed the impugned order of dismissal on the ground that even the copy of the enquiry report which is a basic requirement of the law as envisaged under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCA Rules 1958') as well as Rule 16(12) of the said Rules was not complied with by the respondents and rather the copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner only after passing of the dismissal order which would not have served any purpose since the petitioner was not only totally kept in dark with regard to the findings recorded by the said enquiry officer in his report but also resulted in deprivation of fair opportunity of making any representation to the appropriate authority in gross violation of disciplinary rules and principles of natural justice. 3. The above fact has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents during the course of hearing. In my view, prima facie respondents are guilty of their lapse for having violated basic requirements of the CCA Rules and also the principles of natural justice inasmuch as before any major penalty specified in Rule 14 of the Rules is imposed and particularly when disciplinary enquiry has been initiated against the delinquent officer, by appointing an enquiry officer, it is obligatory for the disciplinary authority to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent so as to afford fair and sufficient opportunity to him of making representation against such findings and/or report. In my considered view this implicit requirement of statute and the principles of natural justice has been flagrantly violated by the respondents. In my considered opinion, no major penalty specified under Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1958 can be imposed on the delinquent without compliance of the aforesaid requirements, unless he has been informed of the charges framed against him and has also been supplied with a copy of the enquiry report where the same has been initiated against him and without giving him a fair opportunity of hearing against the said charges. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the relevant documents on the record as well as examined the rival claims and contentions of the parties. 5. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the relevant documents on the record as well as examined the rival claims and contentions of the parties. 5. Before moving this court by way of present writ petition, the petitioner had also challenged the impugned order of dismissal by preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur Respondent No. 3 and the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 4.6.1992 whereby the order of dismissal stood modified to that of compulsory retirement. 6. It is, thus, after having exhausted all the avenues available to him, the petitioner has moved this Court by way of present writ petition. 7. My observations are fortified from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar P., 1993 JT Vol. VI (S.C.) : 1994(1) SCT 319 (SC), wherein the Apex Court while considering the question with regard to the maintainability of the order of dismissal of an employee in the context of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India (as amended by 42nd Amendment) held that whenever the service Rules contemplate an enquiry before a punishment is awarded and when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee will have a right to receive copy of the report of enquiry officer notwithstanding the nature of punishment. The Apex Court has categorically held that the delinquent must be provided with a copy of enquiry report and the Apex Court affirmed its earlier view in the matter of Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1990 J.T. Vol. IV S.C. 456 : 1991(1) SCT 111 (SC), Paras 1 and 19. The aforesaid observations of the Apex Court have been consistently followed also in its subsequent decisions and the Apex Court has consistently held that the proper procedure contemplated in accordance with the requirements of the law should be followed by the disciplinary authority before the imposition of extreme penalty of dismissal or removal from service is imposed on the delinquent. 8. 8. Prima facie I am of the opinion that before the absence of an employee from duty can be termed as a 'wilful' the conduct of the employee should be such as to fall within the ambit of 'wilful/deliberate absence from duty' so as to attract the major/minor penalty as contemplated under the CCA Rules 1958. This is not a case of wilful absence from duty, since the petitioner had duly informed the competent authority regarding his absence from duty on medical ground on account of his ailment which was diagnosed by the concerned Medical Officer as 'liver infection' which certainly requires bed rest for a particular period and in spite of this, leave was not sanctioned by the competent authority. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was forced to take leave on medical ground, it cannot even be remotely considered as irregularity so as to attract even the imposition of minor penalty of the nature specified in Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1958. In my opinion, it is only the enquiry officer who could formulate the opinion by recording a finding in this regard which admittedly has not been done in this case. 9. I am further of the opinion that if the orders of dismissal/removal from service are to be passed in such a clandestine manner as has happened in this case, then no bonafide employee will be free to discharge his duties efficiently since the fear of dismissal would be constantly lurking in his mind and even in such genuine cases where he is incapacitated from discharging his duties on account of sudden illness which is duly certified by the concerned doctor attending on him. The concerned authorities should be careful before passing such orders in future after duly analysing the facts and circumstances of each case. 10. Consequently, I allow this writ petition and the impugned order dated 31.12.1991 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner as well as the appellate order dated 4.6.1996 passed by the respondents No. 3 and 4 respectively are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits which may be admissible to him in accordance with the rules. 11. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits which may be admissible to him in accordance with the rules. 11. The respondents are further directed to implement the aforesaid directions of this court within a period of 8 weeks from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order. 12. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******