Per Yaqoob, J.;— 1. The above referred appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 06.10.2006 delivered by the writ court in SWP No. 175/2001 titled Ali Mohammad Lone v. State, SWP no.1753/2001 titled Gh. Rasool Lone v. State and SWP No. 1754/2001 titled Hilal Ahmad Wani v. State, so are taken up together for adjudication. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The writ petitioners, police officials of the State Police Department, were posted at the residence of one Mohammad Maqbool (PP) situated at Hanjipore, Kupwara. During the night intervening 26/27th May 2001, group of militants succeeded in snatching the arms and ammunition from them. Departmental enquiry initiated culminated in recommending punishment vis-a-vis 1) HC Ali Mohd., demotion to the rank of Sgct. 2) Sgct. Gh. Rasool demotion to the rank of Constable, 3) Sgct. Hilal Ahmad demotion to the rank of Constable and 4) vis-a-vis Constable Feroz Ahmad, forfeiture of increment for a period of 10 years. 4. The disciplinary authority-Superintendent of Police, Kupwara disagreed with the recommendations and ordered dismissal of all the four police officials from the service w.e.f. 27.05.2001 regarding which Order No. 655 of 2001 dated 06.09.2001 was issued. It is the said order which has been challenged by three police officials by medium of aforementioned three writ petitions. 5. The learned writ court, while disposing of all the three writ petitions repelled the contention of the petitioners by holding that enquiry was conducted but at the same time opined that penalty imposed cannot stand for non-adherence of Rule 359 of the Police Rules, based on which imposition of penalty has been quashed leaving the respondents (State Authority) at liberty to issue notice as required by the Rules to the petitioners and then to consider the matter in light of the response as shall be submitted by them in this behalf. 6. Writ petitioners have projected the grievance as against the finding that the enquiry has been conducted so have filed three appeals registered as LPA Nos. 402/2006,401/2006 & 09/2007. Whereas on the other hand State has also filed three appeals bearing LPA Nos. 106/2007,107/2007 & 108/2007 projecting therein that the writ petitioners have admitted the occurrence therefore, there was no requirement of serving any notice before imposition of penalty. 7. 402/2006,401/2006 & 09/2007. Whereas on the other hand State has also filed three appeals bearing LPA Nos. 106/2007,107/2007 & 108/2007 projecting therein that the writ petitioners have admitted the occurrence therefore, there was no requirement of serving any notice before imposition of penalty. 7. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners projected that enquiry, as is envisaged, was not conducted at all therefore, finding of the learned writ court is not correct but the submission as made, on scrutiny of the records, is found to be without any substance. 8. Mr. Magray, Sr. AAG, has produced the enquiry records, perusal of which amply suggest that the detailed enquiry has been conducted and the writ petitioners were associated with the process therefore, it shall not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to contend that proper enquiry was not conducted, so on this ground, which was the only ground to challenge, judgment impugned is unsustainable. 9. Learned Sr. AAG, while projecting his case in the three appeals as filed against the same judgment submitted that there is no requirement of issuing any show cause notice before imposition of penalty. The contention at the first instance appeared to be attractive but on close scrutiny was found to be without any substance. 10. After conclusion of the enquiry requirement was to supply the enquiry report to the writ petitioners which has not been done which contravenes the principles of natural justice. In this connection it will be useful to quote para-18 of the judgment Union of India & Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, 1991(1) SCC 588 :- "18. We make it clear that wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and will also be entitled to an copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires, and non furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge hereafter." 11. In the instant case admittedly enquiry was conducted by an authority other than the disciplinary authority therefore, the disciplinary authority before awarding punishment was required to furnish enquiry officer's report to the delinquent. 12. It shall also be quite apt to quote the following portion from para-30 of the judgment rendered by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & ors. v. B. Karunakar & ors. (1993)4 SCC 727 "30. Hence the incidental questions raised above may be answered as follows: (i) Since the denial of the report of the enquiry officer is a denial of reasonable opportunity and a breach of the principles of natural justice, it follows that the statutory rules, if any, which deny the report to the employee are against the principles of natural justice and, therefore, invalid. The delinquent employee will therefore, be entitled to a copy of the report even if the statutory rules do not permit the furnishing of the report or are silent on the subject." "Whenever, therefore, the service rules contemplate an inquiry before a punishment is awarded and when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority the delinquent employee will have the right to receive the enquiry officer's report notwithstanding the nature of the punishment." 13. In view of the 42nd amendment of the Constitution, the Sub Article-2 of Article- 311 was substantially altered. The proviso incorporated therein would provide that after the enquiry has been held for imposing penalty it shall not be necessary to give such a person an opportunity of making any representation against the penalty proposed. 14. In the referred judgment para 28 provides that the proviso to Article 311(2) accept two successive stages of differing scope. Since the penalty is to be proposed after the enquiry, which enquiry in effect is to be carried out by the disciplinary authority. 15. The employee's reply to the enquiry officer's report and consideration of such reply by the disciplinary authority also constitute the integral part of such enquiry. 16. It has been further held that- "Now the disciplinary authority has to consider the representation of the employee against the report before it arrives at its conclusion with regard to his guilt or innocence of the charge." 17. 16. It has been further held that- "Now the disciplinary authority has to consider the representation of the employee against the report before it arrives at its conclusion with regard to his guilt or innocence of the charge." 17. Since in the case in hand, after conclusion of enquiry, enquiry report has not been supplied to the delinquent so he has been deprived of making the representation. 18. It may not be out of context to state that 42nd amendment of the Constitution has not been made applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, therefore, right to show cause against the penalty proposed as has been taken away by the 42nd amendment, is not applicable to the writ petitioners. Such right is still available to the employees of the State which is in-keeping with Article 126 of the Constitution of the State. 19. In terms of Rule 359, Sub rule 11(2) of the Police Rules, reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the penalty proposed is not required under three situations; a. When the dismissal or removal or reduction in rank is on the ground of conduct which led to the conviction on a criminal charge. b. Where the authority is empowered to impose penalty of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded by the authority it shall be impracticable to afford opportunity to a person for showing the cause. c. Where the Governor in the interest of security satisfies that it shall be expedient to give the official such liberty before imposition of conviction. 20. The case of the writ petitioners admittedly does not fall within the ambit of the afore-stated three categories. When it is so, then requirement to afford reasonable opportunity for showing cause as against the penalty proposed is indispensable. 21. In view of the clear position of law as referred, the three appeals filed by the State in the said background are also without any merit. 22. Viewed thus, all the six appeals; three filed by the writ petitioners and three filed by the State, being without merit, are dismissed alongwith all connected CMPs. 23. The enquiry record as produced by learned Sr. AAG be returned back to him.