The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Superintendent Jail on 17.7.1995 and posted at Sub-Jail Hiranagar, whereafter he was transferred to Sub-Jail Reasi. He was placed under suspension vide order No. 350 of 2001 dated 28.4.2001 on the allegation of having committed embezzlement of Rs. 1,81,000/-. He challenged the order of his suspension through SWP No. 954/2001 and by an interim direction passed by this Court on 14.5.2001 his order of suspension was stayed. Faced with the staying of the suspension order the respondents recalled the same by order No. 470/2001 dated 18.5.2001 and enquiry into the conduct of the petitioner was initiated. After completion of the enquiry a show cause notice dated 25.6.2001 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why the proposed punishment of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him. The petitioner submitted his reply on 30.6.2001. After considering the reply of the petitioner the respondents imposed the punishment of reversion to the post of Head Warden from the post of Assistant Superintendent Jail upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the reversion the petitioner has challenged the order of punishment inter alia on the ground that with the show cause notice copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer was not furnished to the petitioner, and therefore, his valuable right of putting up proper defence to the show cause notice was rendered elusory. Therefore non-furnishing of the copy of the report has seriously prejudiced the petitioner, which renders the order of punishment invalid and bad in law being in violation of the mandate of Art.34 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. 2. The case of the respondents is that there was no requirement of law for furnishing of the enquiry report. The question of vitiating the order of punishment on the ground of non-furnishing of copy of the enquiry report with the show cause notice, according to the respondents, can arise only when prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner. According to the respondents it is not the case of the petitioner set up in the writ petition that any prejudice has been caused to him because of non-furnishing of copy of the enquiry report, therefore, the petition of the petitioner merits to be dismissed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 4. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 4. The question arising for determination in this case is whether the delinquent official is entitled to a copy of the inquiry report on the basis of which the disciplinary authority proposes to impose penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank upon such official? 5. Undisputedly the inquiry against the petitioner was conducted in terms of Rule 33 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. Rule 34 of the said rules provides:- "After the inquiry against a Government servant has been completed, and after the authority competent to impose penalty has arrived at provisional conclusions in regard to the penalty to be imposed, the Government servant charged shall, if the penalty proposed is dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, be supplied with a copy of the proceedings prepared under rule 33 excluding the recommendations, if any, in regard to punishment, made by the officer conducting the inquiry and asked to show cause by particular date which affords him reasonable time, why the proposed penalty should not be imposed on him." 6. Section 126(2) of the Constitution of J&K which is in parameteria with Art.311 (2) of constitution of India as it existed before its amendment by 42nd Amendment reads:- "(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges and where it is proposed, after such inquiry, to impose on him any such penalty, until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed, but only on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry." 7. Section 126(2) thus provides for providing official charged a reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed upon him which means that before an order of imposing punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is passed by a disciplinary authority, he must be issued a show cause notice. Rule 34 of CCA Rules requires that such Government employee shall be supplied with a copy of the proceedings prepared under rule 33and asked to show cause why the proposed penalty should not be imposed upon him. 8. Rule 34 of CCA Rules requires that such Government employee shall be supplied with a copy of the proceedings prepared under rule 33and asked to show cause why the proposed penalty should not be imposed upon him. 8. Therefore, from reading both the provisions together i.e. rule 34 CCA Rules and Sec.126 (2) of the constitution of Jammu & Kashmir, the legal position emerging out is that an employee against whom on the basis of inquiry punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is to be imposed, such employee is entitled to be given a show cause notice alongwith a copy of the inquiry report for enabling him reasonable opportunity to represent against the proposed action. 9. In State of Gujrat v. R.G. Teredesai, AIR 1969 SC 1294 the Supreme Court held that:- "The requirement of a reasonable opportunity would not be satisfied unless the entire report of the Inquiry Officer including his views in the matter of punishment were disclosed to the delinquent public servant. The Inquiry Officer is under no obligation or duty to make any recommendations in the matter of punishment and his function merely is to conduct the inquiry in accordance with law and to submit the records alongwith his findings. But if he has also made recommendations in the matter of punishment "that is likely to affect the mind of the punishing authority with regard to penalty or punishment to be imposed" it must be disclosed to the delinquent officer. Since such recommendations from part of the record and constitute appropriate material for considering of the Government it would be essential that that material should not be withheld from him so that he could, while showing the clause against the proposed punishment, make a proper representation. The entire object of supplying a copy of the report of the inquiry officer is to enable the delinquent officer to satisfy the punishing authority that he is innocent of the charges framed against him and that even if the charges are held to have been proved, the punishment proposed to be inflicted is unduly severe." 10. Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India however came to be amended by Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act 1976, which came into force from Ist of January 1977. It expressly stated that "it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed". Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India however came to be amended by Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act 1976, which came into force from Ist of January 1977. It expressly stated that "it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed". So the controversy arose as to whether when inquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority, the employee is entitled to the copy of the findings of inquiry officer and for that matter whether such employee was still entitled to make representation against the proposed action? 11. In AIR 1988 SC 1000, Union of India v. E. Bashyan, their lordships of the Supreme court held as under:- "Now an Enquiry Officer merely makes his recommendations by his report in the light of the evidence recorded by him and the submissions urged before him. The tentative view expressed by the Enquiry Officer may or may not be accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. It is the Disciplinary Authority who makes up his mind on the basis of the report and reaches the conclusion whether or not the delinquent is guilty. He may or may not accept the recommendations and may or may not accept the report. The Disciplinary Authority builds his final conclusion on the basis of his own assessment of evidence taking into account the reasoning articulated in Enquiry Officers report and the recommendations made therein. If the report is not made available to the delinquent this crucial material which enters into the consideration of the Disciplinary Authority never comes to be known to the delinquent and he gets no opportunity whatsoever to have a say in regard to this criminal material at any point of time till the Disciplinary Authority holds him guilty or condemns him. Such would be the consequence even if the Enquiry Officer has found him to be blameless and recommended his exoneration in case the Disciplinary Authority has disagreed with the Enquiry Report. There can be glaring errors and omissions in the report. Or it may have been based on no evidence or rendered in disregard of or by overlooking evidence. Even so, the delinquent will have no opportunity to point out to the Disciplinary Authority before the axe falls on him and he is punished. There can be glaring errors and omissions in the report. Or it may have been based on no evidence or rendered in disregard of or by overlooking evidence. Even so, the delinquent will have no opportunity to point out to the Disciplinary Authority before the axe falls on him and he is punished. It appears to us to be a startling proposition to advance that the only authority which really and actually holds him guilty need not afford any opportunity to the person against whom such finding of guilt is recorded and the material on which he acts. It needs to be highlighted that serving a copy of the enquiry report on the delinquent to enable him to point out anomalies, if any, therein before the axe falls and before finding about guilt is recorded by the Disciplinary Authority is altogether a different matter from serving a second show cause notice to enable the delinquent in the context of the measure of the penalty to be imposed." Their lordships further observed:- "The true legal position in regard to the findings recorded by an Enquiry Officer and the legal effect of his report as spelled out by us hereinabove is buttressed by a decision rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964)4 SCR 718 : (AIR 1964 SC 364) a quarter century ago wherein the following propositions have been enunciated:- (1) the Enquiry officer holds the enquiry against the delinquent as a delegate of the Government; (2) the object of the enquiry by an Enquiry officer is to enable the Government to hold an investigation into the charges framed against the delinquent, so that the Government can in due course consider the evidence adduced and decide whether the said charges are proved or not; (3) "the findings on the merits" recorded byu the Enquiry officer are intended" merely to supply appropriate material for the consideration of the Government. Neither the findings nor the recommendations are binding on the Government as held in A.N.Dsilva v. Union of India, 1962 Supp(1) SCR 968 : AIR 1962 SC 1130; (4) The enquiry report alongwith the evidence recorded by the Enquiry officer constitutes the material on which the Government has ultimately to act. That is the only purpose of the enquiry and the report, which the Enquiry Officer makes as a result thereof. 12. That is the only purpose of the enquiry and the report, which the Enquiry Officer makes as a result thereof. 12. It is thus evidence that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer become infused with life only when the Disciplinary Authority applies his mind to the material which inter alia consists of the report of the Enquiry Officer alongwith the evidence and the record etc. If therefore the basic material comprising of the report of the Enquiry Officer which has been taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority for holding that the delinquent is guilty as per the view expressed by his delegate, namely Enquiry Officer, is not made available to the delinquent till the axe falls on him, can it be said that the principles of natural justice have been complied with? Can it be said that the delinquent had an opportunity to address the mind the Disciplinary Authority who alone in reality found him guilty? Since it cannot be so asseverated it will be difficult to resist the conclusion that principles of natural justice have been violated and the delinquent has been denied reasonable opportunity." 13. In AIR 1991 SC 471, Union of India v. Mohd Ramzan Khan,it was held by the Supreme Court:- "Several pronouncement of this Court dealing with Art.311 (2) of the constitution have laid down the test of natural justice in the matter of meeting the charges. This Court on one occasion has stated that two phases of the inquiry contemplated under Art.311 (2) prior to the 42nd amendment were judicial. That perhaps was a little stretching the position. Even if it does not become a judicial proceeding there can be no dispute that it is a quasi-judicial one. The e is a charge and a denial followed by an inquiry at which evidence is led and assessment of the material before conclusion is reached. These facets do make the matter quasi-judicial and attract the principles of natural justice. As this Court rightly pointed out in the Gujarat case (AIR 1969 SC 1294) the disciplinary authority is very often influenced by the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer and even by the recommendations relating to the nature of punishment to be inflicted. These facets do make the matter quasi-judicial and attract the principles of natural justice. As this Court rightly pointed out in the Gujarat case (AIR 1969 SC 1294) the disciplinary authority is very often influenced by the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer and even by the recommendations relating to the nature of punishment to be inflicted. With the Forty-second amendment, the delinquent officer is not associated with the disciplinary inquiry beyond the recording of evidence and the submissions made on the basis of the material to assist the Inquiry Officer to come to his conclusions. In case his conclusions are kept away from the delinquent officer and the Inquiry Officer submits his conclusions with or without recommendation as to punishment, the delinquent is precluded from knowing the contents thereof although such material used against him by the disciplinary authority. The report is an adverse material if the inquiry officer records a finding of guilt and proposes a punishment so far as delinquent is concerned. In a quasi-judicial matter, if the delinquent is being deprived of knowledge of the material against him though the same is made available to the punishing authority in the matter of reaching his conclusion, rules of natural justice would be affected. Prof.Wade has pointed out: "The concept of natural justice has existed for many centuries and it has crystallized into two rules: that no man should be judge in his own cause and that no man should suffer without first being given a fair hearing. They (the courts) have been developing and extending the principles of natural justice so as to build up a kind of code of fair administrative procedure to be obeyed by authorities of all kinds. They have done this once again, by assuming that Parliament always intends powers to be exercised fairly." 14. The aforesaid view expressed by the Supreme Court came up for consideration before the Constitution Bench of the Supreme court in case titled Managing Director ECIL v. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074. Their lordships observed as follows:- "7. What emerges from the above survey of the law on the subject is as follows: Since the Government of India Act,1935 till the 42nd Amendment of the constitution, the Government servants had always the right to receive report of the Inquiry Officer/authority and to represent against the findings recorded in it when the Inquiry Officer/authority was not the disciplinary authority. What emerges from the above survey of the law on the subject is as follows: Since the Government of India Act,1935 till the 42nd Amendment of the constitution, the Government servants had always the right to receive report of the Inquiry Officer/authority and to represent against the findings recorded in it when the Inquiry Officer/authority was not the disciplinary authority. This right was however, exercisable by him at the second stage of the disciplinary proceedings viz. when he was served with a notice to show cause against the proposed penalty. The issuance of the notice to show cause against the penalty necessarily required the furnishing of a copy of the inquiry officers report since, as held by the courts, the right to show cause against the penalty also implied the right to represent against the findings on the charges. This was considered to be an essential part of the reasonable opportunity incorporated earlier in section 240(3) of the GOI Act and later in Article 311(2) of the constitution as originally enacted. The right to receive the Inquiry Officers report and to show cause against the findings in the report was independent of the right to show cause against the penalty proposed. The two rights came to be confused with each other because as the law stood prior to the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution, the two rights arose simultaneously only at the stage when a notice to show cause against the proposed penalty was issued. If the disciplinary authority after considering the Inquiry Officers report had dropped the proceedings or had decided to impose a penalty other than that of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, there was no occasion for issuance of the notice to show cause against the proposed penalty. In that case, the employee had neither the right to receive the report and represent against the finding of guilt nor the right to show cause against the proposed penalty. The right to receive the report and to represent against the findings recorded in it was thus inextricably connected with the acceptance of the report by the disciplinary authority and the nature of the penalty proposed. The right to receive the report and to represent against the findings recorded in it was thus inextricably connected with the acceptance of the report by the disciplinary authority and the nature of the penalty proposed. Since the 42nd Amendment of the constitution dispensed with the issuance of the notice to show cause, against the penalty proposed even if it was dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, some courts took the view that the Government servant was deprived of his right to represent against the findings of guilt as well. The error occurred on account of the failure to distinguish the two rights which were independent of each other. 15. While the right to represent against the findings in the report is part of the reasonable opportunity available during the first stage of the inquiry viz. before the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the findings in the report, the right to show cause against the penalty proposed belongs to the second stage when the disciplinary authority has considered the findings in the report and has come to the conclusion with regard to the guilt of the employee and proposes to award penalty on the basis of its conclusions. The first right is the right to prove innocence. The second right is to plead for either no penalty or a lesser penalty although the conclusion regarding the guilt is accepted. It is the second right exercisable at the second stage, which was taken away by the 42nd Amendment. 16. The reason why the right to receive the report of the Inquiry Officer is considered an essential part of the reasonable opportunity at the first stage and also a principle of natural justice is that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer form an important material before the disciplinary authority which alongwith the evidence is taken into consideration by it to come to its conclusions. It is difficult to say in advance, to what extent the said findings including the punishment, if any recommended in the report would influence the disciplinary authority while drawing its conclusions. It is difficult to say in advance, to what extent the said findings including the punishment, if any recommended in the report would influence the disciplinary authority while drawing its conclusions. The findings further might have been recorded without considering the relevant evidence on record, or by misconstruing it or unsupported by it, If such a finding is to be one of the documents to be considered by the disciplinary authority, the principles of natural justice require that the employee should have a fair opportunity to meet, explain and controvert it before he is condemned. It is the negation of the tenets of justice and a denial of fair opportunity to the employee to considering the findings recorded by a third party like the Inquiry Officer without giving the employee an opportunity to reply to it. Although it is true that the disciplinary authority is supposed to arrive at its own findings on the basis of the evidence recorded in the inquiry, it is also equally true that the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer alongwith the evidence on record. In the circumstances, the findings of the Inquiry Officer do constitute an important material before the disciplinary authority, which is likely to influence its conclusions. If the Inquiry Officer were only to record the evidence and forward the same to the disciplinary authority that would not constitute any additional material before the disciplinary authority of which the delinquent employee has no knowledge. However when his findings, as stated above, which may or may not be based on the evidence on record or are contrary to the same or in ignorance of it, such findings, are an additional material unknown to the employee but are taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority while arriving at its conclusion. Both the dictates of the reasonable opportunity as well as the principles of natural justice, therefore, comes to its own conclusions, the delinquent employee should have an opportunity to reply to the Inquiry officers findings. The disciplinary authority is then required to consider the evidence, the report of the Inquiry Officer and the representation of the employee against it. 17. It will thus be seen that where the Inquiry Officer is other than the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary proceedings break into two stages. The disciplinary authority is then required to consider the evidence, the report of the Inquiry Officer and the representation of the employee against it. 17. It will thus be seen that where the Inquiry Officer is other than the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary proceedings break into two stages. The first stage ends when the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions on the basis of the evidence, Inquiry Officers report and the delinquent employees reply to it. The second stage begins when the disciplinary authority decides to impose penalty on the basis of its conclusions. If the disciplinary authority decides to drop the disciplinary proceedings, the second stage is not even reached. The employees right to receive the report is thus, a part of the reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the first stage of the inquiry. If this right is denied to him, he is in effect denied the right to defend himself and to prove his innocence in the disciplinary proceedings. 18. The position in law can also be looked at from a slightly different angle. Article 311(2) says that the employee shall be given a "reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the charges against him." The finding on the charges given by a third person like the Inquiry Officer, particularly when they are not borne out by the evidence or are arrived at by overlooking the evidence or misconstruing it, could themselves constitute new unwarranted imputations. What is further, when the proviso to the said Article states that "where it is proposed after such inquiry to impose upon him any such penalty such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed," it in effect accepts two successive stages of differing scope. Since the penalty is to be proposed after the inquiry which inquiry in effect is to be carried out by the disciplinary authority (the Inquiry Officer being delegate appointed to hold the inquiry and to assist him),the employees reply to the Inquiry Officers report and consideration of such reply by the disciplinary authority also constitute an integral part of such inquiry. The second stage follows the inquiry so carried out and it consists of the issuance of the notice to show cause against the proposed penalty and of considering the reply to the notice and deciding upon the penalty. What is dispensed with is the opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed and not of opportunity of making representation on the report of the Inquiry Officer. The latter right was always there. But before the 42nd Amendment of the constitution the point of time at which it was to be exercised had stood deferred till the second stage viz. the stage of considering the penalty. Till that time, the conclusions that the disciplinary authority might have arrived at both with regard to the guilt of the employee and the penalty to be imposed were only tentative. All that has happened after the 42nd Amendment of the constitution is to advance the point of time at which the representation of the employee against the Inquiry Officers report would be considered. Now the disciplinary authority has to consider the representation of the employee against the report before it arrives at its conclusion with regard to his guilt or innocence of the charges. 19. Hence it has been held that when Inquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority the delinquent employee has right to receive a copy of the Inquiry Officers report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusion with regard to the guilt or innocence e of the employee with regard to the charges leveled against him. That right is a part of employees right to defend himself against the charges leveled against him. A denial of Inquiry officers 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 breach of the principle of natural justice. 20. Hence the incidental question raised above may be answered as follows:- (i) Since denial of the report of the Inquiry Officer is a denial of reasonable opportunity and breach of principal 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. 20. Hence the incidental question raised above may be answered as follows:- (i) Since denial of the report of the Inquiry Officer is a denial of reasonable opportunity and breach of principal 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 copy of the report even if the statutory rules do not permit the furnishing of the report or are silent on the subject; (ii) The relevant article 311(2) of the constitution is as follows:- "(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges." Thus the article makes it obligatory to hold an inquiry before an employee is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank. The article however, cannot be construed to mean that it prevents or prohibits the inquiry when punishment other than that of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is awarded. The procedure to be followed in awarding other punishment is laid down in service rules governing the employee. What is further, article 311(2) applies only member to the civil services of the Union or an all India Service or a civil service of the State or to the holders of the civil posts under the union or the state. In the matter of all punishments both government servants and others are governed by their service rules. Whenever, therefore, the 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 Officers report notwithstanding the nature of punishment. (iii) Since it is the right of the employee 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 this 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. (iii) In the view that we have taken viz that the right to make representation to the disciplinary authority against the finding 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 case (AIR 1991 SC 471) supra should apply employees in all establishments whether government or non-government, public or private. This will be the case whether there are rules governing the disciplinary proceedings or not and whether they expressly prohibit the furnishing 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 its finding on the charges leveled against him. Their lordships even on the face of amendment of Art 311(2) of the Constitution of India held the denial of the report of the inquiry officer to be a denial of reasonable opportunity to defend and thus a breach of principles of natural justice. 21. While dealing with the effect of non-furnishing of inquiry report before imposition of penalty their lordships observed:- "The next question to be answered is what is the effect on the order of punishment when the report of the Inquiry Officer is not furnished to the employee and what relief should be granted to him in sjuch cases. The answer to this question has to be relative to the punishment awarded. When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non-furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him, Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee with back wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of natural of justice were mechanical rituals. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principle of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principle of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantation to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all or sundry occasion, whether infact prejudice has been caused to be employee or not on account of denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report no different consequences would have followed it would be perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amount to an unnatural expansion of natural justice, which in itself is antithetical to justice. Hence, in all cases where the inquiry officers report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings the courts and Tribunal should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming to the court, Tribunal and give the employee an opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of the non-apply of the report. If after hearing the party, the court/Tribunal come to the conclusion that the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to ultimate finding and the punishment given, the court/Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment. The court/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. The courts should avoid resorting to shortcuts, since it is the Court/Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the question and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the order of punishment,(and not any internal appellate or revisional authority) there would be neither a breach of principle of natural justice nor a denial of reasonable opportunity. It is only if the courts/Tribunal find that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case that it should set aside the order of punishment. It is only if the courts/Tribunal find that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case that it should set aside the order of punishment. Where after following the above procedure, the courts/Tribunal set aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ultimately ordered should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final out come, if the employee succeeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be reinstated the authority should be at liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period from the date of dismissal till reinstatement and what benefits, if any and the extent of the benefits, he will be entitled. The reinstatement made as a result of setting aside of the inquiry or failure to furnish the report should be treated as a reinstatement for the purpose of holding the fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more, where such fresh inquiry is held. That will also be the correct position in law." 22. On the basis of the above said observations of the Supreme Court on the point of effect of non-furnishing of inquiry report Mr.Salathia submits that non-supply of the inquiry report per se does not vitiate the order of punishment. According to him the objection in this behalf can only be entertained when prejudice is shown to have been caused due to non-furnishing of the inquiry report. 23. According to him the objection in this behalf can only be entertained when prejudice is shown to have been caused due to non-furnishing of the inquiry report. 23. It is true that by the aforesaid observations of their lordships it has been directed that courts should not set aside the orders of punishment mechanically simply on the ground that copy of inquiry report has not been furnished unless prejudice is shown to have been caused to such delinquent official but the vital question would be whether these observations of the Supreme Court shall have any application in the State of J&K. The observations, in my view, appears to have been made by the Supreme Court by keeping in view the fact of passing of 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India whereby right of the employee to show cause before imposition of penalty stood taken away. Even in those cases the view of their lordships has been that principles of natural justice would still require that such employee is supplied with a copy of Inquiry Report before imposition of penalty. In this state undisputedly, amendment of Art.311 (2) by 42nd Amendment is not applicable and therefore the cases would continue to be governed by section 126(2) of constitution of J&K and the provision contained in Rule 34 CCA Rules, meaning thereby that in case of imposition of penalty of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, a show cause notice is necessary and alongwith the show cause notice furnishing of inquiry report is also necessary, especially in view of a specific provision in this regard existing in rule 34 of CCA Rules. Prejudice or no prejudice once the provision contained in rule 34 CCA Rules and Art.126 (2) of the constitution of J&K provide for giving of a show cause notice for giving reasonable opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to the delinquent official, furnishing of the report is the mandatory rule of law. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that requirement of furnishing copy of the inquiry report depends only on causing of prejudice. 24. In the present case admittedly no copy of enquiry report has been furnished alongwith the show cause notice to the petitioner, therefore order of imposition of penalty is bad in law being violative of requirement of Rule 34 CCA Rules,1956. 25. 24. In the present case admittedly no copy of enquiry report has been furnished alongwith the show cause notice to the petitioner, therefore order of imposition of penalty is bad in law being violative of requirement of Rule 34 CCA Rules,1956. 25. The writ petition of the petitioner is, therefore, allowed and the order impugned dated 10.7.2001, whereby punishment of reduction in rank has been imposed upon the petitioner is quashed. The respondents, disciplinary authority, shall, however, be at liberty to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner, alongwith a copy of the inquiry report and thereafter pass fresh order or in the alternative to hold a fresh inquiry. 26. It is however stated that the petition has been decided on the above ground alone there being no necessity for expressing opinion on other grounds taken in the writ petition. 27. Disposed of alongwith connected CMPs.