JUDGMENT 1. :- The appellant-writ petitioner was appointed as a Cattle Guard (Vraksh Palak) with effect from 1.9.86 and he was declared semi- permanent on that post with effect from 1.4.89. While he was working on the said post in the Forest Department in Uniara Range, he received a letter dated 15.5.92 calling for an explanation, from the Divisional Forest Officer, Tonk to which he submitted a reply on 3.6.1992. Thereafter, he received another letter calling for an explanation, dated 29.7.94, to which also he replied vide his reply dated 27.8.94. Ultimately, he received an office order dated 26.12.95 whereby his services were terminated. He filed a writ application being S.B. Civil Writ petition No.67/96, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 2.4.1996. Being aggrieved by the order as aforesaid, as passed by the learned Single Judge as also the impugned order of termination dated 26.12.95, he has filed the present special appeal. 2. It has been contended by the appellant that he was not served with any charge-sheet and no disciplinary enquiry was held in his case. In the termination order dated 26.12.95, it was observed, inter-alia, that since his complicity was proved in respect of the allegation made against him, his services were terminated. However, in respect of the allegation which formed the basis of the charge against him, the petitioner having not been communicated in clear terms and no departmental enquiry having been conducted in his case, we think that the principles of natural justice were dearly violated in this case. The learned Single Judge, however, observed that even though the writ petitioner contended that the report of the Dy. Inspector General of Police was neither in his knowledge nor a copy of the same was supplied to him, there was no material on record to show that the writ petitioner appellant ever made any application for inspection of the record or even made any application for supplying him the copy of the enquiry report or any other document. The learned Single Judge perhaps forgot the basic tenets of natural justice that the copy of the enquiry report has to be funished to the writ petitioner for making him aware as to how the charges stood proved against him so that he can prefer a departmental appeal efficaciously. The learned Single Judge perhaps forgot the basic tenets of natural justice that the copy of the enquiry report has to be funished to the writ petitioner for making him aware as to how the charges stood proved against him so that he can prefer a departmental appeal efficaciously. He could not prefer any departmental appeal in the present perspective and even if such a departmental appeal was not filed by him, which was by way of alternative remedy, this Court would not be reluctant to interfere in the matter, but would set aside the penal order passed on him. 3. We accordingly allow this special appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the impugned order dated 26.12.1995 terminating the services of the writ petitioner-appellant and direct the respondents to hold a proper departmental proceedings in accordance with law. With such leave being granted, the petitioner-appellant is directed to be reinstated in service forthwith. In view of his reinstatement in service, he would be entitled to all consequential benefits.SPL. Appeal allowed. *******