JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 23.01.1998 (Annexure-7) by which the petitioner who was an Assistant was dismissed from the service and also for quashing of the order dated 08.12.1998 (Annexure-9) passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 02/98 by which the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal. 2. The facts in short are that the petitioner was working as Assistant under the District Cooperative Officer at Ranchi. He was suspended vide Order dated 07.02.1991 and thereafter, the chargesheet was issued against him stating five charges against him. 3. The petitioner filed a detailed show-cause denying the charges made against him. It appears that the order of suspension of the petitioner was revoked pursuant to the order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3756 of 1993 (R). 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that after he submitted his detailed show-cause, he was not given any kind of notice or information that the departmental enquiry was proceeding against him and he could know about the departmental enquiry only after he received the second show-cause notice dated 06.06,1996 (Annexure-5) issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Society, Bihar, Patna whereby, he was directed to submit his show-cause as to why he by way of punishment be not dismissed from the service. It is further stated by the petitioner that prior to the said letter dated 06.06.1996 (Annexure-5), he was not informed at all about the pendency of the departmental proceedings against him and therefore, no reasonable opportunity was given to him to defend himself. It is further stated by the petitioner that in the second show-cause notice dated 06.06.1996 (Annexure-5), it was mentioned that the copy of the enquiry report was being sent alongwith the said notice but in fact no such enquiry report was attached with the said letter. In this regard, it is further submitted that the petitioner was served with the copy of the enquiry report only on 23.01.1998 alongwith the order of the punishment of dismissal contained in Annexure - 7. 5. Mr. In this regard, it is further submitted that the petitioner was served with the copy of the enquiry report only on 23.01.1998 alongwith the order of the punishment of dismissal contained in Annexure - 7. 5. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was neither given any chance to defend himself in the departmental enquiry which was made behind his back nor the copy of the enquiry report was supplied to him before passing the punishment order (Annexure-7) and therefore, the departmental enquiry as well as the enquiry report and the order of punishment are all invalid in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors. and followed in the case of NTC (WBA & O) Ltd. and Anr. v. Anjan Kumar Saha . He further submitted that in the second show-cause, as well as before the appellate authority, the petitioner specifically raised these points but the same was not considered. The disciplinary authority, without considering the same, has passed the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from the service which has been affirmed in appeal also. 6. The respondent State has filed a counter affidavit. In paragraph - 20 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that vide letter No. 878, dated 17.08.1997 (Annexure-A), the petitioner was directed to be present at the enquiry spot. Though it has been stated in the said para-20 of the counter affidavit that the same is being made Annexure - A, but in fact no such letter was annexed with the counter affidavit. However, even if it is accepted that such letter was issued to the petitioner directing him to be present at the enquiry spot but It is significant to note that the departmental enquiry had already been concluded long back in the year 1993 itself, therefore, there was no sense in issuing such letter directing the petitioner to be present at the enquiry spot in the year 1997 as stated in paragraph - 20 of the counter affidavit. 7. Supreme Court, in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors. (Supra) has held that non supply of the copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent after conclusion of the enquiry and before passing of the punishment order would render the punishment invalid. 7. Supreme Court, in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors. (Supra) has held that non supply of the copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent after conclusion of the enquiry and before passing of the punishment order would render the punishment invalid. The said decision has been followed in the case of NTC (WBA & O) Ltd. and Anr. v. Anjan Kumar Saha (Supra). 8. Mr. Pradeep Modi, learned G.P. - I, could not show that the petitioner was given any notice/information or a chance to defend himself in the departmental enquiry pr even after conclusion of the departmental enquiry he was served copy of the enquiry report before passing of the order of punishment against him. 9. In this situation, relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court mentioned above, there is no other option but to hold that the departmental enquiry against the petitioner in which the charges against the petitioner was held to be proved, was illegal since the petitioner was not given any chance to defend himself by issue of any notice. It is further held that even after the conclusion of enquiry, a copy of enquiry report was also not supplied to the petitioner before passing of the impugned punishment order contained in Annexure-7 dated 23.01.1998 and therefore the punishment awarded to the petitioner is also invalid. Since these facts were not considered by the appellate court and as such, in my view, the order of the appellate court (Annexure-9) dated 08.12.1998 also could not be sustained 10. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The enquiry report contained in Annexure - 6 dated 17.08.1993, the order contained in Annexure - 7 dated 23.01.1998 dismissing the petitioner from service and Annexure - 9 the order dated 08.12.1998 passed by the appellate authority are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to formally reinstate the petitioner for the limited purpose of enabling him to proceed with the departmental enquiry. 11. Let a fresh departmental enquiry be held against the petitioner for the charges already served to him. The petitioner should be given adequate and reasonable opportunity so that he may defend himself in the departmental proceedings. The respondents are directed to formally reinstate the petitioner for the limited purpose of enabling him to proceed with the departmental enquiry. 11. Let a fresh departmental enquiry be held against the petitioner for the charges already served to him. The petitioner should be given adequate and reasonable opportunity so that he may defend himself in the departmental proceedings. If after conclusion of the enquiry the petitioner is exonerated, the authority shall decide, according to law, how for the intervening period from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement shall be treated and what consequential benefits should be granted to him. If on the contrary, the petitioner is found to be guilty, then before taking any final decision, the petitioner should be heard on the proposed penalty and thereafter, the authority concerned may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is allowed.