M. R. CALLA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was posted as Doctor in the Civil Hospital, Gandhinagar. The petitioner was said to be negligent and indifferent in attending and treating a patient of snake bite and therefore, he was placed under suspension by order dated 25. 7. 1995. Against this order the petitioner preferred a Special Civil Application No. 6657 of 1995 and the same was disposed of by this court on 6. 9. 1995 with a direction to complete the inquiry within a period of four months from 6. 9. 1995 subject to the co-operation of the delinquent petitioner. It was also directed that in case the inquiry is not completed within four months the suspension order passed against the petitioner shall cease to be operative on and with effect from February 7,1996. Thereafter the inquiry has been held and in the inquiry the charges have been found to be proved against the petitioner and on that basis the order dated 19. 5. 2000 has been passed whereby a punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect has been imposed. ( 2 ) AFORESAID order is assailed in this petition on the ground that a copy of the preliminary report had not been made available to the petitioner and that second show cause notice was also not given to him proposing the punishing before passing the final order and that the inquiry has not been completed within the time schedule as ordered by this Court in the earlier petition. ( 3 ) ONCE the full fledged inquiry has been held with reasonable opportunity, there is no question of any grievance about the availability or otherwise of the preliminary inquiry report. Report of preliminary inquiry by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence in the departmental proceedings and therefore, whether a copy of the preliminary report was made available or not does not make any difference and is of no consequence to vitiate the inquiry or to say that reasonable opportunity is denied. ( 4 ) THERE is no question of giving second show cause notice of proposed punishment in view of the amendment made in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India in 1976 (42nd amendment) w. e. f. 3. 1. 1977. ( 4 ) THERE is no question of giving second show cause notice of proposed punishment in view of the amendment made in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India in 1976 (42nd amendment) w. e. f. 3. 1. 1977. So far as the grievance that the time schedule as ordered by this court on September 6,1995 was not followed is concerned, it may be at once clarified that non adherence to such time schedule does not give rise to any illegality in the proceedings or the ultimate order which has been made the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. At the most it may be a case of contempt if the schedule as ordered by this court has not been followed subject to the condition that the petitioner proves that he had co-operated and he was not responsible for prolonging the inquiry. ( 5 ) THIS court does not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned in this petition. The punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect cannot be said to be either excessive or disproportionate in face of the element of proved misconduct against the petitioner- a Doctor who shown negligence and behaved with total indifference in taking care of patient. Lack of sense of patient care cannot be viewed lightly as the noble profession of Doctors does not permit such a casual approach towards patients and that too in cases of emergency. There is no merit in this Special Civil Application. The same is accordingly rejected. .