Judgment S. N. Jha, J. 1. Sole petitioner is dead. An application (LA. No.660 of 1996) has been filed on behalf of his wife and children for their substitution. 2. Having regard to the nature of the order giving rise to this writ petition, the prayer for substitution is allowed. 3. Let the name of the petitioner be expunged from the records and in his place, those of heirs as mentioned in the said application (I. A, No.660/96), be substituted. 4. On merits, counsel for the petitioner contended that the deceased petitioner had suffered prejudice on more than one count. Neither the copy of certain letters which have been taken into account by the disciplinary authority nor the copy of the enquiry report was served. He pointed out that, as it would appear from the impugned order itself, the enquiry officer exonerated the petitioner of the charges. In such a situation, it was obligatory for the authorities to give him opportunity for filing further snow cause. He submitted mat although it is open to the disciplinary authority to differ from the finding of the enquiry officer, but neither cogent reasons have been assigned for taking a different view nor any opportunity of hearing was given. In these premises, the impugned order should not be sustained. Counsel also made submissions on the merit of the charge and contended that the very initiation of the proceeding was based on non-est charge. 5. Since the writ petition is fit to succeed on the ground of violation of natural justice, it is not necessary to go into the merit of the charges. Even otherwise, it is well settled that the writ court is supposed to see only correctness of the decision making process and not the correctness of the decision/charge. 6. In the ordinary course the matter should have been remitted back to the authority for fresh consideration, but since the petitioner has died during the pendency of the case, it would not be proper to keep the matter pending, I am satisfied that the petitioner suffered prejudice on account of the non-supply of copy of the documents and enquiry report and the impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. In the result, the notification dated 7-3-94 (Annexure-9) is quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Petition Allowed.