JUDGMENT : Sujoy Paul, J. 1. This petition is transferred from MP Administrative Tribunal. By filing this petition, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the disciplinary proceedings, punishment, appellate and revisional orders. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 2.5.1992. He submitted his reply on 25.6.1992. Since the petitioner denied the charges, the enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer submitted his report before the disciplinary authority. In turn, the disciplinary authority issued a notice, Annexure A-20 dated 8.3.1994. After this show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply, Annexure A-21, running in 32 pages, along with certain enclosures. The disciplinary authority passed the punishment order dated 22.12.1995. Two increments of the petitioner were withheld with cumulative effect. Petitioner preferred appeal against this order, which was rejected on 14.6.1999. Thereafter, he preferred a revision before the State Government. The State Government by order dated 13.12.2000 modified the punishment by directing that punishment will be the same but without cumulative effect. This modification was done for the singular reason that before punishment the consent/approval of the Public Service Commission (PSC) was not obtained which is necessary for imposing major punishment. Thus, the nature of punishment was modified from major to minor. 2. Shri N.S. Kirar, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed the disciplinary proceedings on various grounds. It is contended that a preliminary enquiry was conducted by Additional Commissioner of the department. The report was in his favour. After receiving the charge sheet, the petitioner submitted representation dated 11.6.1992, whereby the said report and other relevant documents were demanded. The documents were not supplied. The enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner was not given opportunity to submit representation against IO's report. The limited opportunity was only against the proposed punishment. By placing reliance on a Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 (Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others vs. B. Karunakar and others), it is contended that the principle of natural justice and opportunity to submit representation is taken away, which vitiates the entire enquiry. He submits that punishment, appellate and revisional order are silent on the grounds raised by the petitioner in representation, appeal and revision. 3. Per Contra, Smt. Sangita Pachauri, learned Deputy Government Advocate, supported the order and disciplinary proceedings. He submits that punishment, appellate and revisional order are silent on the grounds raised by the petitioner in representation, appeal and revision. 3. Per Contra, Smt. Sangita Pachauri, learned Deputy Government Advocate, supported the order and disciplinary proceedings. She submits that full, reasonable and effective opportunity of defence was provided to the petitioner. No interference is warranted in the writ petition. 4. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and perused the record. 5. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 8.3.1994. The relevant portion of the notice reads as under:- A careful reading of this notice makes it crystal clear that the contention of Shri Kirar has much force. The limited opportunity given to the petitioner by this notice was to submit his representation against the proposed punishment. No opportunity was granted to the petitioner to submit his representation against the findings of the enquiry officer. The respondents in para (viii) of the return (page 8) have admitted that enquiry officer's report was not supplied to the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has not shown any prejudice and, therefore, mere non-supply of the report will not vitiate the enquiry. A plain reading of this paragraph shows that the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be given penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The penalty order dated 22.12.1995 also shows that the only opportunity afforded to the petitioner was to submit his representation against the proposed punishment. 6. A conjoint reading of the show cause notice, penalty order and aforesaid paragraph of the return makes it clear like noon day that petitioner's valuable right to submit his representation against IO's report was snatched and taken away. Once the said opportunity itself was denied, the question of showing any further prejudice does not arise. The respondents have accepted the enquiry officer's report as a gospel truth and did not consider the representation against the IO's report and inflicted the punishment, which was modified in revision. 7. A perusal of petitioner's representation against the show cause notice aforesaid shows that the petitioner has taken pains to point out various discrepancies/procedural irregularities in the enquiry. He pointed out the defects in the findings and made an attempt to demonstrate that principles of natural justice and statutory provisions of CCA Rules are violated. 8. 7. A perusal of petitioner's representation against the show cause notice aforesaid shows that the petitioner has taken pains to point out various discrepancies/procedural irregularities in the enquiry. He pointed out the defects in the findings and made an attempt to demonstrate that principles of natural justice and statutory provisions of CCA Rules are violated. 8. Since the show cause notice was confined to the proposed punishment only, none of these grounds raised in the reply of the petitioner could fetch any result. Resultantly, the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority confined their concentration only on the question of quantum of punishment and did not deal with the procedural part of the enquiry and petitioner's right to prefer the representation. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondents have erred in issuing the aforesaid notice. By the said notice, the petitioner's right to submit representation against IO's report is taken away. This is arbitrary and runs contrary to the settled legal position. It also runs contrary to the judgment of Supreme Court in B. Karunakar (supra). 10. Resultantly, the order based on such show cause notice cannot be permitted to stand. Consequently, the punishment order dated 22.12.1995, appellate order dated 14.6.1999 and revisional order dated 13.12.2000 are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner by furnishing him the enquiry officer's report. The petitioner shall get opportunity to file his representation on merits against IO's report. The disciplinary authority shall consider the petitioner's representation on IO's report on every aspect and shall not confine consideration only on the quantum of punishment. Thereafter necessary orders may be passed in accordance with law. 11. I am conscious of the fact that this matter is pending since 2003. Accordingly, liberty is reserved to proceed further and conclude the enquiry within eight months subject to cooperation of the petitioner. If despite cooperation of the petitioner enquiry is not concluded within eight months from the date of production of copy of this order, the same shall stand abated. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Petition Partly Allowed