Judgment A. K. Ganguly, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging inter alia, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner and also the order cancelling the second time bound promotion which was granted to the petitioner. Learned coun93l for the petitioner has actually challenged three orders in this writ petition; first one is annexure-11 which is the order imposing punishment on the petitioner. Second one iis annexure-13 which is the order dated 2nd june, 1993 passed by the respondentauthority rejecting the petitioners representation against the order of penalty and the third one is the order dated 15th June, 1993 (annexure-14) whereby the second time bound promotion given to the petitioner in 1985 has been cancelled and the recovery of amount paid to the petitioner as a result of the said promotion has been ordered. 2. It appears that the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of certain charges. It is not in dispute that in respect of those charges an enquiry was held and the enquiry report was admittedly not given to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has fairly admitted that even though the charge-sheet was given to the petitioner and also memo of evidence but the enquiry report, which was submitted by the enquiring officer after conclusion of the enquiry was not given to the petitioner. 4. The disciplinary proceeding was held under Rule 167 of Bihar Boards Miscellaneous rules, 1958 and under the provisions of Rule 157 (iii) of the said Rules it is made clear that after the enquiry is completed the delinquent officer should be supplied with the enquiry report. The said requirement under the aforesaid statutory rule has not been complied with in the instant case. As such, the order of penalty, which has been passed after non-compliance of the said rule, cannot be upheld. The attention of the Court has been drawn to a decision in the case of mohammad Ramzan Khan Vs. Union of India reported in 1991 (SC) page 471 wherein it has been held by a Bench of three Judges of the Hon ble Supreme Court that non-furnishing of copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent officer despite the 42nd amendment, constitutes a violation of principles of natural justice. As" such, the order of punishment imposed on the delinquent officer without furnishing the enqiry report is bad in law. As" such, the order of punishment imposed on the delinquent officer without furnishing the enqiry report is bad in law. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of punishment dated 15th december, 1992 imposed on the petitioner is set aside. 5. Learned counsel tor the respondents had drawn the attention of the Court to a decision in the case of Managing Director, ecil, Hyderabad, and others Vs. K. Karunakar reported in A. I. R.1994 (SC)Page 1074 and submitted that the matter should be remitted back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration even though the enquiry report has not been furnished to the petitioner. This Court is of the view that in the facts of the case the order of punishment which has been imposed without furnishing the enquiry report to the petitioner is bad in law. The ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Md. Ramzan Khan (Supra) has also been upheld in the subsequent case of the managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (Supra ). Therefore, the imposition of penalty is certainly bad in law. But in this case the petitioner is retiring on 29th February, 1996 and, therefore, I am not remanding the case to the disciplinary authority. However I am not quashing the charge sheet issued by the authority and it is open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of the charge sheet in accordance with law. 6. In as far as the order dated 15th june, 1993 which cancels the second time bound promotion given to the petitioner on 9th September, 1987 is concerned, this court also quashes the same inasmuch by the said order the promotion given to the petitioner in 1987 was sought to be cancelled after a lapse of six years without disclosing any reason. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention of the court to the paragraph-30 of the counter affidavit and stated that the reasons have been disclosed in the affidavit but it is too late in the day to argue that orders passed publicly by public authorities can be improved upon on the basis of the reasons disclosed in the affidavit. This position was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of gobardhan Das Bhauji (AIR) 1952 Supreme court, Page 16 as subsequently affirmed in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (AIR)1978 Supreme Court Page 857. This position was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of gobardhan Das Bhauji (AIR) 1952 Supreme court, Page 16 as subsequently affirmed in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (AIR)1978 Supreme Court Page 857. It is, however, open to the respondent authorities to pass a reasoned order if they are so inclined to cancel the second time bound promotion granted to the petitioner in 1987. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above No order as to costs.