JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: (Oral) - The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the plaintiff’s suit for declaration challenging the order dated 08.03.1990 was dismissed. 2. The following question of law arises for consideration of this Court: “Whether the order of reversion without conducting a regular inquiry is sustainable? 3. The plaintiff challenged the order dated 08.03.1990 in the present suit on the grounds that no notice was served upon the plaintiff before passing the impugned order nor he was granted any opportunity to lead evidence in defence. In the written statement, the defendants have denied that the order dated 08.03.1990 was passed without serving any notice opon the plaintiff. 4. To prove his case, the plaintiff appeared as his own witness as PW-1 and deposed that he was working as Lineman and that he was reverted to the post of Assistant Lineman without giving an opportunity of being heard. On the other hand, the defendants examined Arya Chander as DW-1, who produced show cause notice Ex.D1, which was said to be served upon the plaintiff and also produced reply Ex.D2 and the report submitted by the XEN as Ex D-3. 5. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the punishment has been imposed after granting due opportunity and thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to declaration. In the first appeal, the learned first Appellate Court returned a finding that in the second show cause notice Ex.D1, there is specific reference to the inquiry conducted against the appellant and that there is no illegality in the conduct of proceedings and Civil Court cannot substitute its own punishment in place of the punishment by the appointing authority. 6. A perusal of the record shows that on 09.02.1987 vide Ex.D-1, the Superintending Engineer served a show cause notice upon the appellant pointing out that a non-fatal accident has taken place on 16.05.1984, due to which the Board suffered financial loss in the shape of compensation. It is, therefore, tentatively decided to revert the plaintiff to the post of Assistant Line Man. The show cause notice was issued as to why the proposed action should not be taken against the plaintiff. It may be noticed that such notice was not prceeded by any inquiry against the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a detailed reply, which is on record as Ex.D2. The show cause notice was issued as to why the proposed action should not be taken against the plaintiff. It may be noticed that such notice was not prceeded by any inquiry against the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a detailed reply, which is on record as Ex.D2. After considering the reply, the communication is addressed by the Executive Engineer to the Superintendent Engineer on 19.02.1993 Ex.D3 pointing out that the plaintiff is responsible for intimating wrong information to Satnarain, Lineman and, therefore, it was recommended that punishment of reversion be imposed. It is, thereafter, on 08.03.1990, the order of reversion was passed, which reads as under: Shri Mahabir Parshad, Lineman S/o Sh. Laxmi Narain previously attached with SDO Op. S/Divn. Jhojhu Kalan under Op. Divn. Ch. Dadri held responsible for the non fatal accident to Sh. Jagdish W/charge T/Mate on 16.05.1984 and tentatively decided by the C.E. (OP)/North, Hissar vide his memo No.Ch-62/AC/BC-247 dated 19.01.1987 to revert him to the post of A.L.M. Accordingly, a show cause notice was served upon the official vide memo no.Ch-17/PFT- 1378 dated 09.02.1987 and reply submitted by the official not found satisfactory. Further Xen. S/U Divn. Bhiwani was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide this office O/O No.275 dated 03.08.1987 to conduct the enquiry against the official. The Enquiry Officer Sh. S.P.Chawla, Xen.S/U Divn. Bhiwani has submitted his enquiry report and Sh. Mahabir parshad, Lineman found responsible for non-fatal accident of Sh. Jagdish W/Charge T/Mate due to which Board has to pay the compensation to victim. On going through the overall position of the case and report of Enquiry Officer, Sh. Mahabir Parshad, Lineman is hereby reverted to the post of A.L.M. as contemplated in the Show Cause Notice and already tentatively decided by CE(OP)/North, Hissar as well as report of Enquiry Officer. Sd/- S.E.(OP) Circle, Bhiwani.” 7. The punishment of reversion to a lower post is a major penalty. Major penalty cannot be imposed without conducting a regular enquiry. The show cause notice was served upon the plaintiff in terms of Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1952 and Regualtion 10 of Haryana State Electricity Board (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1980. The show cause notice was not to conduct a regular departmental inquiry nor there was any indication that the aforesaid show cause notice is preceding a regular departmental inquiry. The show cause notice was not to conduct a regular departmental inquiry nor there was any indication that the aforesaid show cause notice is preceding a regular departmental inquiry. The show cause notice proposed punishment of reversion to the post of Assistant Lineman as a part of compliance of principles of natural justice. The communication Ex.D3 is not indicative of regular departmental inquiry, but is recommendation of the Executive Enginner to the Superintendent Engineer. While passing the order dated 08.03.1990, the copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the plaintiff, as is required to be mandatory in ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 , wherein it was held as under: “27. It will thus be seen that where the enquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary proceedings break into two stages. The first stage ends when the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions on the basis of the evidence, enquiry officer’s report and the delinquent employee’s reply to it. The second stage begins when the disciplinary authority decides to impose penalty on the basis of its conclusions. If the disciplinary authority decides to drop the disciplinary proceedings, the second stage is not even reached. The employee’s right to receive the report is thus, a part of the reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the first stage of the inquiry. If this right is denied to him, he is in effect denied the right to defend himself and to prove his innocence in the disciplinary proceedings.” 8. Since the plaintiff has been imposed major penalty of reversion without conducting of regularly inquiry and in violation of the principles of law laid down in the aforesaid case, I am of the opinion that the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below suffer from patent illegality and irregularity. Consequently, the same are set aside holding that before reversion, the regular inquiry is necessary. 9. Having answered substantial question of law in favour of the plaintiff, the suit is decreed with all the consequential benefits subject to the right of the defendants to initiate disciplinary proceedings, if consider appropriate. ---------0.B.S.0------------