JUDGMENT (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Petitioner by means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of termination/dismissal dated 20th July, 1990 as well as the charge-sheet on the basis of which the said order was passed. (2.) THE facts of the case, as unfolded in the petition, are that the petitioner, who was Ex.-Army man, was appointed as a Clerk by the Collector/president, District Soldiers (Sailers and Airmen's) Board, Bulandshahr, vide order dated 17-4-70. He was thereafter promoted to the post of Head Clerk. Alongwith the letter dated 16-6-1989 charge-sheet of the same date was served upon the petitioner by respondent No. 2, under the signature of Col. P. P. S. Yadav, whereby the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation of six charges levelled against him. THE charges were based on the documents/material referred to and relied upon in charge-sheet, but the copies of the said documents were not sup plied to the petitioner. Petitioner on receipt of the charge-sheet, requested the respondent No. 2. to supply the copies of the documents, which were referred to and relied upon in the charge-sheet; but they were not supplied to him. In the absence of the documents referred to above, petitioner was not in a position to file his effective reply of the aforesaid charge-sheet. However, petitioner submitted his reply to the Enquiry Officer Mr. C. S. Chauhan on 29-6-89 alongwith the covering letter stating therein that he will like to produce the evidence oral and documentary in support of his case and he will also like to cross-examine the witnesses, if produced against him. Petitioner complained that the proceedings were initiated and conducted at the instance of one Mr. R. P. Singh, who was instrumental against him and was himself responsible for the manipulation of the documents/official records, which were subject-matter of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 14-10-89 called upon Sri R. P. Singh and other persons named in paragraph 16 of the writ petition to appear before him and to produce the evidence in respect of the charges. He has also fixed 20-10-89 for appearance of the said persons before him. However the said order was never complied with. Neither Mr. He has also fixed 20-10-89 for appearance of the said persons before him. However the said order was never complied with. Neither Mr. R. P. Singh, nor other persons appeared before the Enquiry Officer. The requisite documents were also not produced by them. The Enquiry Officer without conducting the enquiry in accordance with the Rules appeared to have submitted some report against the petitioner. However, the said report did not see the light of the day and was never communicated to the petitioner. It is stated that no definite findings were recorded by the Enquiry Officer on the charges levelled against the petitioner. How ever, respondent No. 2 without supplying the copy of the report of enquiry to the petitioner and without affording an opportunity to defend himself and to show cause against the proposed punishment, dismissed him from service in violation of the principles of natural justice, as well as violation of provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India vide order dated 20-7-89. On behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit has been filed denying the facts stated in the writ petition. It has been asserted that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity of hearing to defend himself. However, the fact that the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order of termination/dismissal has been passed, has not been denied in the counter affidavit. The copy of the enquiry report has also not been annexed with the counter affidavit. The stand taken by the respondents is that it was not necessary to supply the copy of the enquiry report or to issue any show cause notice before passing the order of dismissal. In the rejoinder affidavit the facts stated in the writ petition have been reiterated and reaffirmed. (3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the order of dismissal dated 20-7-90 passed by respondent No. 2 was wholly arbitrary as the same was passed without affording an opportunity to defend to the petitioner. In the rejoinder affidavit the facts stated in the writ petition have been reiterated and reaffirmed. (3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the order of dismissal dated 20-7-90 passed by respondent No. 2 was wholly arbitrary as the same was passed without affording an opportunity to defend to the petitioner. He submitted that it was obligatory upon respondent No. 2 to supply the copy of the alleged enquiry report to the petitioner to afford him an opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment, before passing the order of termination/dismissal No. such opportunity having been afforded to him, therefore the impugned order was hit by the principles of natural justice as well as provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that it was also obligatory upon the contesting respondents to supply the copies of the documents to the petitioner alongwith the charge-sheet, which were referred to and relied upon in support of the charges ; the said documents were not supplied to the petitioner inspite 10 the request made by him. The petitioner was, therefore, deprived of the opportunity to defend himself. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for petitioner has referred to and relied upon the following rulings : Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 S. C. 471. Managing Director E. C. I. L. v. B. Karunakar, alr 1994 S. C. 1974. (4.) LEARNED counsel for the contesting respondents on the other hand, contended that the impugned order was passed by the competent authority in accordance with law and that it was not necessary for the respondent No. 2 to supply the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner in view of 42nd Amendment of the Constitution. From the material on the record, it is clearly proved that the documents, which were referred to and relied upon in the charge-sheet, were not supplied to the petitioner. However, the petitioner filed his reply/explanation of the charges levelled against him. It is also not disputed that the copy of the enquiry report was never sup plied to the petitioner and the impugned order of termination was passed by the respondent No. 2 against him. However, the petitioner filed his reply/explanation of the charges levelled against him. It is also not disputed that the copy of the enquiry report was never sup plied to the petitioner and the impugned order of termination was passed by the respondent No. 2 against him. In the impugned order itself it has been observed as under: (5.) IT is also evident from the aforesaid order that the enquiry report has been referred to and relied upon by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner besides the other documents and the order of dismissal was passed against him without supplying copy of the enquiry report and without affording an opportunity of being heard to him before passing the impugned order of termination/dismissal. In Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case (supra) it was ruled by the apex Court of the country as under: "deletion of the second opportunity from the Scheme of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution has nothing to do with providing of a copy of the report to the delinquent in the matter of making his representation. Even though the second stage of the inquiry in Article 311 (2) has been abolished by amendment, the delinquent is still entitled to represent against the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer holding that the charges or some of the charges are established and holding the delinquent guilty of such charges for doing away with the effect of the enquiry report or to meet the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer in the matter of imposition of punishment, furnishing a copy of the report becomes necessary and to have the proceeding completed by using some material behind the back of the delinquent is a position not to countenanced by fair procedure. While by law application of natural justice could be totally ruled out or truncated, nothing has been done here which could be taken as keeping natural justice out of the proceedings and the series of pronoun cements of this Court making rules of natural justice applicable to such an inquiry are not affected by the Forty Second Amendment. While by law application of natural justice could be totally ruled out or truncated, nothing has been done here which could be taken as keeping natural justice out of the proceedings and the series of pronoun cements of this Court making rules of natural justice applicable to such an inquiry are not affected by the Forty Second Amendment. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that supply of a copy of the inquiry report alongwith recommendation, if any, in the matter of proposed punishment to the inflicted would be within the rules of natural justice and the delinquent would, there fore, be entitled to the supply of a copy thereof, be entitled second Amendment has not brought about any change in this position. (6.) THE question regarding scope of the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution and requirement of supply of enquiry report to the delinquent Govt. servant was considered by a Constitutional Bench in the case of Managing Director E. C. I. L. is case (supra ). THE Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court reviewed the law on the aforesaid subject and after taking into consideration all relevant decisions including the decision in Ramzan Khan's case was pleased to rule as under: "hence it has to be held that when the Inquiry Officer is not be disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has right to receive a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That right is a part of the employee right to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. A denial of the Inquiry Officer's report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice. Hence incidental questions raised above may be answered as follows : (i) Since the denial of the report of the Inquiry Officer is a denial of reasonable opportunity and a breach of the principles of natural justice, it follows that the statutory rules, if any, which deny the report to the employee are against the principles of natural justice and, therefore, invalid. The delinquent employee will, therefore, be entitled to a copy of the report even if the statutory rules do not permit the furnishing of the report or are silent on the subject. . . . . . . . (ii) In the matter of all punishments both Govt. servants and others are governed by their service rules contemplate an inquiry before a punishment is awarded and when the Inquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority the delinquent employee will have the right to receive the Inquiry Officer's report notwithstanding the nature of the punishment. (iii) Since it is the right of the employees to have the report to defend himself effectively and he would not know in advance whether the report is in his favour or against him, it will not be proper to construe his failure to ask for the report, as the waiver of his right whether therefore, the employee asks for the report or not the report has to be furnished to him. (iv) In the view that we have taken viz. that the right to make representation to the disciplinary authority against the findings recorded in the inquiry report is an integral part of the opportunity of defence against the charges and is a breach of principles of natural justice to deny the said right, it is only appropriate that the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case , AIR 1991 S. C. 471 (supra) should apply to employees in ail establishments whether Government or non-Government, public or private. This will be the case whether there are unless governing the disciplinary proceedings or not and whether they expressly prohibit the furnishing of the copy of the report or are silent on the subject. Whatever, the nature of punishment, further whenever, the rules require an inquiry to be held for inflicting the punishment in question, the delinquent employee should have the benefit of the report of the Inquiry Officer before the Disciplinary authority records it findings on the charge levelled against him. Hence question (iv) is answered accordingly. Whatever, the nature of punishment, further whenever, the rules require an inquiry to be held for inflicting the punishment in question, the delinquent employee should have the benefit of the report of the Inquiry Officer before the Disciplinary authority records it findings on the charge levelled against him. Hence question (iv) is answered accordingly. " In the present case, it is not disputed that the enquiry against the petitioner was conducted by an Officer other than the punishing authority and report was submitted by him, to the punishing authority, therefore, in view of decision in Managing Director ECIL's case (supra) it was obligatory upon the punishing authority to supply the copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner before passing the order of termination/dismissal against him. The inquiry report having not been supplied to the petitioner on apparently erroneous interpretation of the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution by the punishing authority, the impugned order of dismissal, is, therefore, clearly hit by Article 311 of the Constitution of India. (7.) THE grievance of the petitioner that he was not even supplied the documents on which the charges levelled against, were based inspite of repeated requests made by him, is also prima facie correct. Legally, the delinquent Govt. servant is entitled to defend himself effectively. In absence of the relevant documents, which are referred to and relied upon in the charge-sheet, effective reply could not be submitted. In the present case, not only the requisite documents, were not given to the petitioner, but he was not even afforded an opportunity to produce evidence in his defence. The enquiry was conducted behind his back and inquiry report was submitted against him. Thus, in my opinion, the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to defend himself effectively, the impugned order is also liable to be quashed on this ground. (8.) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 20-7-90 is hereby quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits. It is, however, observed that it will be open to the respondents, if they so desire to conduct the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above and to pass appropriate orders. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .