PRADEEP KANT, K. S. RAKHRA, J. ( 1 ) COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT filed today be placed on record. ( 2 ) HEARD Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. C. Yadav, learned counsel for the State. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner says that in view of the averments made in the counter-affidavit, he does not intend to file any rejoinder-affidavit. We have, therefore, proceeded to decide the matter on merit. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by an order of dismissal from service dated January 23, 1992, the petitioner, who was Secretary in the Nagar palika Centralised Service, filed a claim petition before the State Public Services tribunal. Apart from other pleas, it was the case of the petitioner that after submission of reply to the charge- sheet, he was not afforded any opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings nor any date, time and place was fixed by the enquiry officer intimating the same. The other ground of attack was that the petitioner was not supplied copy of the enquiry report and was thus not issued any show cause notice to enable him to place his defence against the enquiry report, on the basis of which the major punishment of dismissal from service has been awarded. Besides this, it was also asserted that subsistence allowance was also never paid during the disciplinary proceedings. ( 5 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the state, it has not been specifically asserted anywhere that any date, time and place was fixed by the enquiry officer or the petitioner was informed about the same. It was also not stated as to why subsistence allowance was not paid to the petitioner. The fact regarding non-supply of the enquiry report has also not been disputed. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal on the question of affording opportunity to the petitioner observed that the petitioner could not satisfy the Tribunal about this ground as from the record it appears that the petitioner himself made some cuttings and over-writings in his own hand writing by playing fraud in the record, which fact has not been denied by the petitioner, therefore, non-affording of opportunity could not be a ground for vitiating the disciplinary proceedings. So far as the payment of subsistence. allowance is concerned, the tribunal observed that unless a certificate is: given by the petitioner as per Rule 53 of financial Hand Book Vol. So far as the payment of subsistence. allowance is concerned, the tribunal observed that unless a certificate is: given by the petitioner as per Rule 53 of financial Hand Book Vol. II, it was rightly not paid to him. The Tribunal thereafter came to a conclusion that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in not affording opportunity to him and also in not providing the enquiry report or the show cause notice. ( 7 ) THE charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on September 14, 1989 and the petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet on January 1, 1990. The petitioner also made request for supply of the documents necessary for the purpose and which were being relied for proving the charge. The matter kept on pending and on March 30, 1990, the enquiry officer submitted report to the punishing authority. Thereafter the punishment order was passed on january 23, 1992. ( 8 ) IN view of the admitted fact that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and he was not informed about the date, time and place for holding the enquiry nor was supplied the documents which were demanded by him and the enquiry report was based simply on the reply submitted by the petitioner, we find that the view taken by the Tribunal otherwise, is palpably erroneous. The entire proceedings are vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice and not affording opportunity to the petitioner. The non-supply of enquiry report and non-issuance of show cause notice was prejudicial in the instant case as at no point of time, the petitioner was afforded any 5 opportunity to participate in the enquiry. As such, the argument of the learned counsel for the State that even if enquiry report has not been supplied to the petitioner or show cause notice has not been issued, and unless prejudice is shown to have been caused by such non-supply of enquiry report or non-issuance of show cause notice, the order of dismissal could not be set aside, is devoid of force. In view of the fact that in a matter where no opportunity was ever afforded to the petitioner for participating in the enquiry, the prejudice in conducting the enquiry and in non-issuance of copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and non-issuance of show cause notice, is evident which does not require any proof. In view of the fact that in a matter where no opportunity was ever afforded to the petitioner for participating in the enquiry, the prejudice in conducting the enquiry and in non-issuance of copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and non-issuance of show cause notice, is evident which does not require any proof. ( 9 ) WE, therefore, quash the orders dated may 31, 1999 and November 21, 2000 passed by the Tribunal and the punishment order dated january 23, 1992. ( 10 ) WE are informed that the petitioner has retired about eight years back and he is at present 66 years of age and also looking to the charges, we do not find it a proper case where liberty can be given for initiating fresh enquiry. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner shall be paid all retiral dues and the salary for the period he remained dismissed from service. 5 11. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. .