JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Nishant Shukla, learned counsel for opposite parties and perused the records. 2. The writ petition was filed in the year 1993, challenging the order dated 19.3.1993, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service by way of punishment after holding disciplinary enquiry. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioner was not issued any second show cause notice and was not provided the enquiry report. In view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan; [ (1991) 1 SCC 588 ], it is mandatory on the part of opposite parties to provide the enquiry report to the delinquent employee and call for the reply on the enquiry report. The said procedure has not been followed, as such, the order impugned suffers from inherent defect and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by opposite parties a bald denial to the contentions of the petitioner has been made. Learned counsel for opposite parties was therefore called upon to produce the relevant records to ascertain as to whether any notice along with enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner or not. 5. Mr. Nishant Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties has produced the records. It is fairly admitted by learned counsel that as per record no notice along with enquiry report was issued to the petitioner and the enquiry report dated 16.3.1993 was not provided to the petitioner. 6. From the order impugned, it is evident that the punishment of dismissal has been awarded considering the enquiry report dated 16.3.1993, wherein the Enquiry Officer has held the petitioner guilty of the alleged charges. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) has held that it is mandatory to provide enquiry report to the delinquent in order to provide an opportunity to submit reply to the same. In case the punishment order imposing major penalty has been passed without providing enquiry report to the delinquent employee the said punishment order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) has held that it is mandatory to provide enquiry report to the delinquent in order to provide an opportunity to submit reply to the same. In case the punishment order imposing major penalty has been passed without providing enquiry report to the delinquent employee the said punishment order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The relevant paragraphs of the abovesaid judgment on reproduction read as under: - "14. This Court in Mazharul Islam Hashmi v. State of U.P. [ (1979) 4 SCC 537 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 54] pointed out: "Every person must know what he is to meet and he must have opportunity of meeting that case. The legislature, however, can exclude operation of these principles expressly or implicitly. But in the absence of any such exclusion, the principle of natural justice will have to be proved." 15. Deletion of the second opportunity from the scheme of Article 311(2) of the Constitution has nothing to do with providing of a copy of the report to the delinquent in the matter of making his representation. Even though the second stage of the inquiry in Article 311(2) has been abolished by amendment, the delinquent is still entitled to represent against the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer holding that the charges or some of the charges are established and holding the delinquent guilty of such charges. For doing away with the effect of the enquiry report or to meet the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer in the matter of imposition of punishment, furnishing a copy of the report becomes necessary and to have the proceeding completed by using some material behind the back of the delinquent is a position not countenanced by fair procedure. While by law application of natural justice could be totally ruled out or truncated, nothing has been done here which could be taken as keeping natural justice out of the proceedings and the series of pronouncements of this Court making rules of natural justice applicable to such an inquiry are not affected by the Forty-second Amendment. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that supply of a copy of the inquiry report along with recommendation, if any, in the matter of proposed punishment to be inflicted would be within the rules of natural justice and the delinquent would, therefore, be entitled to the supply of a copy thereof. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that supply of a copy of the inquiry report along with recommendation, if any, in the matter of proposed punishment to be inflicted would be within the rules of natural justice and the delinquent would, therefore, be entitled to the supply of a copy thereof. The Forty-second Amendment has not brought about any change in this position. 16. At the hearing some argument had been advanced on the basis of Article 14 of the Constitution, namely, that in one set of cases arising out of disciplinary proceedings furnishing of the copy of the inquiry report would be insisted upon while in the other it would not be. This argument has no foundation inasmuch as where the disciplinary authority is the Inquiry Officer there is no report. He becomes the first assessing authority to consider the evidence directly for finding out whether the delinquent is guilty and liable to be punished. Even otherwise, the inquiries which are directly handled by the disciplinary authority and those which are allowed to be handled by the Inquiry Officer can easily be classified into two separate groups ? one, where there is no inquiry report on account of the fact that the disciplinary authority is the Inquiry Officer and inquiries where there is a report on account of the fact that an officer other than the disciplinary authority has been constituted as the Inquiry Officer. That itself would be a reasonable classification keeping away the application of Article 14 of the Constitution. 17. There have been several decisions in different High Courts which, following the Forty-second Amendment, have taken the view that it is no longer necessary to furnish a copy of the inquiry report to delinquent officers. Even on some occasions this Court has taken that view. Since we have reached a different conclusion the judgments in the different High Courts taking the contrary view must be taken to be no longer laying down good law. We have not been shown any decision of a coordinate or a larger bench of this Court taking this view. Therefore, the conclusion to the contrary reached by any two-Judge bench in this Court will also no longer be taken to be laying down good law, but this shall have prospective application and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this ground. 18. Therefore, the conclusion to the contrary reached by any two-Judge bench in this Court will also no longer be taken to be laying down good law, but this shall have prospective application and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this ground. 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 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." 8. The law laid down by the Apex court is prospective in nature and in the present case it is fully applicable. As such, I am of the considered view that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is to be noted that the Court while entertaining the writ petition vide interim order dated 21.4.1993 has stayed the operation of the impugned order with direction to the authorities to allow the petitioner to work and shall be paid salary regularly. The interim order dated 21.4.1993 on reproduction reads as under: - "Admit. Sri R.K. Tiwari appears on behalf of opposite parties. This is an admitted fact that copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. In view of this fact, in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramzan Khan (1991 Lucknow Civil Decision, 241) meanwhile it is provided that the operation of the impugned order dated 19.3.1993 contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition shall remain stayed and the petitioner shall be permitted to work within three days from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted to the authorities and after resuming the work he shall be paid his salary regularly." 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that the petitioner in compliance of interim order is at present working and getting his salary regularly. 10. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that the petitioner in compliance of interim order is at present working and getting his salary regularly. 10. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 19.03.1994, contained in Annexure-1 is hereby quashed with liberty to opposite parties to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.