JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 7.7.1999 passed by the Secretary, Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur for terminating the petitioner from service with immediate effect. 2. Heard Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Mr. R. Piba, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. As ordered by this Court, Mr. Piba produced the relevant file containing the disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner before this Court for perusal. 4. By filtering the unnecessary details, the concise facts which should be sufficient for deciding the present writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as regular Peon (Grade IV) with retrospective effect from 1.4.1993 in the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur, vide order of the Secretary, Council of Higher Education, Manipur dated 30.7.1993. 5. While the petitioner was serving as regular Grade-IV (Peon), Secretary, Council of Higher Education, issued order being No. 1/30/93-HSC dated 10.7.2007 for placing the petitioner under suspension in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 with immediate effect in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Later on, the Secretary, Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur issued Memorandum being No. 1/68/95-HSC dated 21.7.1998 for holding a disciplinary proceeding/disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner for two articles of charges. The first article of charge No. 1 against the petitioner was that during the period from 1.4.1993 to 9.7.1998, petitioner had taken a sum of Rs. 160/- + Rs. 50/- in two occasions from one Shri Robert Gangte a student of Kakching Khunou College in connection with Migration certificate and Duplicate Admission card and the second article of charge was during the said period i.e. from 1.4.1993 to 9.7.1998, petitioner had taken a sum of Rs. 100/- from Shri Phaomei Gangchalung of Nungmang village, Nungba Sub-Division in connection with correction of name of his son Shri Phaomei Meijingampau. 6. By an order of the Secretary, Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur dated 2.2.1999 one Shri P. Chourjit Singh, Deputy Secretary Administration), Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur was appointed as a Presenting Officer in the said disciplinary proceedings or departmental enquiry against the petitioner for the said articles of charge. 6. By an order of the Secretary, Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur dated 2.2.1999 one Shri P. Chourjit Singh, Deputy Secretary Administration), Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur was appointed as a Presenting Officer in the said disciplinary proceedings or departmental enquiry against the petitioner for the said articles of charge. The Inquiry Officer under his letter dated 6.2.1999 directed the petitioner to appear at the Council Office on 27.2.1999 for holding the preliminary hearing. Later on, by another letter dated 15.5.1999 of the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner had been informed that the said preliminary enquiry scheduled to be held on 27.2.1999 had been postponed to 24.5.1999. 7. The Secretary, Council of Higher Secondary Education issued another order dated 15.5.1999 for appointing one Shri. Kh. Tomchou Singh, Under Secretary (Administration), Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur as Presenting Officer in place of Shri P. Chourjit Singh, Deputy Secretary (Administration), Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur. It is stated that on the basis of the Preliminary enquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the Secretary, Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur issued the impugned order dated 7.7.1999 for terminating the petitioner from service with immediate effect. Hence the present petition. 8. From the submission of Mr. M. Hemchandra, learned council appearing for the petitioner as well as on perusal of the writ petition it appears that the writ petitioner had assailed the impugned termination order dated 7.7.1999 only on three (3) main thrust. (a) As there was no regular departmental enquiry or/disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner for the said articles of charge as contemplated in Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1965, the impugned termination order dated 7.7.1999 basing on the preliminary enquiry report is not sustainable. (b) Neither the Inquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority furnished a copy of the enquiry report after completing the preliminary enquiry or/disciplinary enquiry to the petitioner so as to enable him to give his explanation to the said enquiry report. Hence, such denial of opportunity will vitiate the penalty of termination imposed to the petitioner under the impugned termination order dated 7.7.1999. (c) The penalty of terminating the service of the petitioner for the said two articles of charge of taking of small amount of money i.e. Rs. 210/- + Rs. 100/- is shockingly disproportionate. 9. Hence, such denial of opportunity will vitiate the penalty of termination imposed to the petitioner under the impugned termination order dated 7.7.1999. (c) The penalty of terminating the service of the petitioner for the said two articles of charge of taking of small amount of money i.e. Rs. 210/- + Rs. 100/- is shockingly disproportionate. 9. The respondents also filed their affidavit-in-opposition stating that in the course of the disciplinary proceedings or/disciplinary enquiry, the petitioner had admitted the articles of charge. But on close perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, it appears that the respondents are not denying that the copy of the enquiry report had not been furnished to the petitioner so as to enable him to file his explanation to the enquiry report and also to the proposed penalty against the petitioner. In nowhere of the counter affidavit, the respondents stated that the said departmental enquiry is not the preliminary enquiry. As such it appears that the respondents are not denying the said enquiry against the petitioner is only the preliminary enquiry. 10. By the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act 1976, the proviso to Article 311(2) had been amended and in other words 2nd opportunity i.e. the second stage of the enquiry i.e. the opportunity to the proposed penalty had been taken away by the 42nd Constitution Amendment of the Article 311(2). 42nd Constitution Amendment and its consequence had been thoroughly discussed by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors. reported in (1994) I LLJ 162 SC. 11. The Constitution Bench in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. (supra) held that in case the disciplinary enquiry is taken up by the Inquiry Officer other than the disciplinary authority, the copy of the enquiry report should be available to the delinquent so as to enable him to give his explanation to the enquiry report and the proposed penalty on the basis of the enquiry report even after the right to show cause against the proposed penalty had been taken away by the 42nd Amendment inasmuch as denial of right to have the copy of the enquiry report amount to denial of reasonable opportunity to give his explanation to the enquiry report and proposed penalty and violative of Articles 14 and 21 and the principles of natural justice. The Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL (supra) also considered the impact of 42nd Amendment of the Constitution regarding Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India decided by the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in (1991) I LLJ 29 SC. From the ratio laid down by the Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Managing Director, ECTL (supra) and the Md. Ramzan Khan (supra) it is clear that delinquent should not be denied of his right to represent his case to the findings of the enquiry officer and also the show cause to the penalty proposed in the report. 12. The first right is the right to prove innocence, the second right is to plead for no penalty or lesser penalty although the guilty is accepted. Right to receive the report of the Inquiry Officer is considered and essential part of reasonable opportunity at the first stage and also principles of natural justice inasmuch as the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer form an important material before the disciplinary authority to come to its conclusion. In the present case the above said two rights read, were available to the petitioner and, therefore, any action taken against him will be violative of the principles of natural justice and the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 13. As discussed above, it is clear that neither the Inquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority furnished a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner before passing the impugned termination order. As such this Court is of the considered view that the impugned termination order dated 7.7.1999 is not sustainable in the eye of the law. Since the impugned order is to be quashed only on this score, this Court is not deciding the other issues i.e. other grounds agitated in the present writ petition. 14. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The impugned termination order dated 7.7.1999 is hereby quashed, consequence being that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service, and any action if necessary against the petitioner is left to the wisdom of the respondents. Petition allowed.