ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against order dated 26.6.2000, issued vide memo no. 4364, as contained in annexure 19, whereby and whereunder certain punishments have been imposed upon the petitioner on conclusion of a departmental proceeding. 3. The order impugned mainly is being assailed on the ground that it is violative of the principles of Natural Justice, inasmuch as the copy of the inquiry report was not given to the petitioner prior to passing of the order of punishment. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after passing of the order impugned, the copy of the inquiry report was given to the petitioner at later stage after six months. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, this fact is not being denied. However it is stated that prior to passing of the order of punishment, inquiry report was not required to be given by the disciplinary authority. 6. It is almost admitted fact that the inquiry report was not given to the petitioner to represent his case before passing of the order of punishment. 7. In view of the decisions in the cases of the Union of India and Ors. Vs. Md. Ramzan Khan [AIR 1991 (1) Supreme Court 471] and Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others Vs. B. Karunakar and Ors. [1993] 4 Supreme Court Cases, 727] the copy of the inquiry report was required to be given prior to passing of the order of punishment and since it has not been done, the order impugned must be held to be violative of the principles of Natural Justice. 8. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already superannuated with effect from 31.12.1999 before passing of the order impugned. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned, as contained in annexure 19, is not sustainable in law. 10. In the result, this application is allowed and the order impugned, as contained in annexure 19, is set aside. 11. No order as to costs.