A. K. BANRJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was a probationer in the Great eastern Hotel, a State Government Undertaking. The writ petitioner, while on probation, was asked to show cause on several irregularities pointed out by the authority. He was ultimately removed from service. He came up by way of writ proceeding. This Court by an order dated september 11, 2001 quashed the order of removal from service on the ground that even if the was a probationer, once charge was inflicted upon him, it was incumbent upon the authority to conduct a regular disciplinary proceeding by giving him reasonable opportunity of hearing. The authority thereafter gave personal hearing to the writ petitioner and passed a reasoned order of removal from service. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has assailed the order of removal on three counts- (i) No copy of the enquiry report was ever given to the petitioner; (ii) Since the disciplinary authority discharged with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, he should have given an opportunity of hearing; (iii) No second show cause notice was issued to him. ( 3 ) MR. Chandra in support of this writ application, relying on two apex Court decisions in the cases of R. R. Gabhane v. State of Madhya pradesh and Ors. (1999)8 SCC 549 and Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of maharshtra and Anr. 1999 (2) CLR 971 and (1999)7 SCC 739 submits that the order of removal is bad in law as it vitiates the principles of natural justice as enunciated by the Apex Court. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel, appearing for the respondent authority, submits that the writ petitioner was on probation. He was removed from service as the authority did not require him any more because of poor performance. This Court, however, negated such contention of the respondent on the last occasion as appears from the said order dated 11th September, 2001. ( 5 ) IT is further contended on behalf of the respondents, that the disciplinary authority did not make some observations about enquiry report but, however, agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and as such a further hearing or a second show cause notice was not required. ( 5 ) IT is further contended on behalf of the respondents, that the disciplinary authority did not make some observations about enquiry report but, however, agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and as such a further hearing or a second show cause notice was not required. ( 6 ) THE charges are grave as I find from the order of the disciplinary authority so was observed by Alok Chakraborty, J. while disposing of the earlier writ petition dated 11th September, 2001. ( 7 ) I have perused the order of the disciplinary authority. I find that the disciplinary authority to a large extent disagreed with the finding. However, on the ground of non-furnishing of the copy of the enquiry report itself, the order is bad. ( 8 ) I, therefore, quash the order of the disciplinary authority dated 11th April, 2003, appearing at pages 88 to 92 of this writ petition. The authority is directed to start the proceedings de novo from the stage of completion of the enquiry. A copy of the enquiry report be supplied to the petitioner through his learned advocate within a week from date. The respondent authority is also directed to serve a second show cause notice upon the petitioner. In case the disciplinary authority intends to disagree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, he must also assign reasons therefore to be communicated to the writ petitioner. Such second show cause notice and/or communication of the reasons must be done within a period of three weeks from date. After receipt of the same the petitioner would be entitled to offer his comments by giving a reply to the second show cause notice. Such reply must be given within a period of fortnight from the date of receipt of the second show cause notice. After the reply is received, the disciplinary authority will give personal hearing to the writ petitioner and complete the proceedings by passing a final speaking order to be communicated to the writ petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of the reply to the second show cause notice. ( 9 ) THE question of payment of back wages as well as payment of subsistence allowance would be considered by the disciplinary authority as well and he would give his decision on that basis in the final order to be passed therein. ( 9 ) THE question of payment of back wages as well as payment of subsistence allowance would be considered by the disciplinary authority as well and he would give his decision on that basis in the final order to be passed therein. Needless to say that the petitioner would be in deemed suspension during this period until the proceeding is over. With these observations, this writ petition being W. P. No. 7983 (W)of 2003 is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Let urgent xerox certified copies of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned advocates, for the parties. Petition disposed of