JUDGMENT : S.N. Pathak, J. The appellant in both the Letters Patent Appeals is same and the questions involved are inter-related and as such, have been tagged and heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Saurav Arun for the appellant in both the appeals and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – Bank. 3. The appellant has challenged the Judgment/order dated 15.06.2007, by which learned Single Judge dismissed C.W.J.C. No. 2310 of 1995 (R) filed against the punishment of removal from the service and C.W.J.C. No. 56 of 1996 (R) which was filed against the inflicting punishment of reversion to Junior Manager Grade at lowest scale. 4. The brief facts of L.P.A. No. 258 of 2007. The appellant had filed C.W.J.C. No. 2310 of 1995 (R) challenging order dated 04.11.1993 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] passed by Chief General Manager, State Bank of India (Respondent No. 3) by which after the departmental proceeding, the appellant was inflicted penalty of removal from service in terms of Rule 67(g) of the State Bank of India, Officers' Service Rule and also order dated 08.03.1995 [Annexure-6 to the writ petition], passed by the Deputy Managing Director, State Bank of India (Respondent No. 2) dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order dated 04.11.1993. 5. The appellant, who was the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, HEC, Sector-II Branch, Ranchi, was proceeded departmentally for the charges dated 13.06.1989 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition]. Charge No. 1. On 15.12.1983, he opened a Savings Bank Account No. 11945 in a fake name viz. Shri Ajit Kumar Agrawal and also verified the forged signature appearing on the relative account opening form. He thus showed gross negligence in opening the said account through which a series of frauds involving Rs.2,52,000/- were perpetrated, causing the Bank a pecuniary loss of the same amount. The list of fraudulent payment manipulated through the said account is given in Annexure 'A'. CHARGE-2. He passed the following payments (a to k) from different Savings Bank Accounts although the relative instruments had not been posted in the concerned accounts:- Moreover, the balance of account no. 10586 at the time of making payments mentioned against b, c, d, e and f was Rs.875.44 only. CHARGE-2. He passed the following payments (a to k) from different Savings Bank Accounts although the relative instruments had not been posted in the concerned accounts:- Moreover, the balance of account no. 10586 at the time of making payments mentioned against b, c, d, e and f was Rs.875.44 only. All the aforementioned payments turned out to be fraudulent once. Had he cared to refer to the concerned ledgers before passing the instruments, frauds amounting to Rs.1,12,000/- could have been averted. CHARGE-3 He passed the aforementioned payment without satisfying himself that the relative instruments were in order in every particular and thereby violated the instructions contained in para 3(c), Chapter-2 of the Bank's Book of Instructions, Volume-II. CHARGE-4. On the following dates (a to g of the charge sheet) while checking the Clean Cash Book, he failed to notice that the figures of Savings Bank Account appearing therein did not tally with those of Savings Bank Summary Day Book. His perfunctory checking of the Clean Cash Book resulted in suppression of frauds amounting to Rs.70,000/-. CHARGE-5 He has thus not only failed to discharge his duties with devotion and diligence, much against Rule 32(4) of State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules but also caused a heavy pecuniary loss to the Bank. The enquiry officer, by his enquiry report dated 05.02.1992, held that the Charge Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were not proved against the appellant. However, the Charge No. 4 stood proved against him. 6. The disciplinary authority, vide his order as contained in Annexure-4, dated 04.11.1993, concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer with regard to the Charge Nos. 2, 3 and 4 but he disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer so far the Charge Nos. 1 and 5 were concerned. He held that: (i) The appellant failed to discaharge his duties with devotion and diligence; (ii) The appellant failed to interview the depositor before opening Savings Bank Account No. 11945 and he also did not ensure completion of particulars by the depositors on the reverse side of the Account Opening-cum-Specimen signature form, as a result a fake Savings Bank Account in the name of Shri Ajit Kumar Agrawal was opened through which a series of frauds involving Rs.2,52,000/- were perpetrated. The said action indicated gross negligence which caused substantial financial loss to the Bank. The said action indicated gross negligence which caused substantial financial loss to the Bank. (iii) The appellant was found guilty of perfunctory checking of Clean Cash Book which resulted in suppression of frauds amounting to Rs.70,000/-. As a Branch Manager, he also failed to notice all the figures of Savings Bank Account appearing in the Clean Cash Book did not tally with the figures shown in the summary of Savings Bank day books on several dates. Had he carefully checked the Clean Cash Book, the difference would have come to light on the same day. In view of the above findings, the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the entire materials, nature of gravity of the lapses treating act as gross negligence of the appellant, resulting in pecuniary loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs.2,52,000/-, inflicted penalty of removal from service in terms of Rule 49(g) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, as contained in Rule 67(g) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules. While inflicting penalty, the disciplinary authority also considered the fact that on earlier occasion also, the appellant was inflicted with the punishment of reversion to junior Management Grade at the lowest stage for his lapses when he was working at Jugsalai Branch and he did not show any sign of improvement in discharge of his duties. 7. The appellant, thereafter, filed an appeal against the said order of the disciplinary authority before the Deputy Managing Director, State Bank of India (Respondent No. 2). The appellate authority, by a detailed reasoned order dated 08.03.1995 (Annexure-6), dismissed the appeal and concurred with the findings and punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority against the appellant. 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 2310 of 1995 (R) raising following issues: (i) The impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority are illegal, invalid. (ii) While differing with the findings of the enquiry officer for the Charge Nos. 1 and 5, the disciplinary authority did not assign any reason as to why and under what circumstances, he was differing with the findings of the enquiry officer. (iii) According to Rule 68(3)(ii) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to record its own findings on such charge. 1 and 5, the disciplinary authority did not assign any reason as to why and under what circumstances, he was differing with the findings of the enquiry officer. (iii) According to Rule 68(3)(ii) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to record its own findings on such charge. Reference has been made to the case of Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in (1999) 7 SCC 739 . (iv) No second show-cause notice before awarding punishment was given to the appellant and, therefore, on this ground also the impugned order inflicting punishment against the appellant was bad in law. Reference has been made to the case of Bindeshwar Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar & Jharkhand reported in 2005(2) JLJR 183 and the case reported in (2003)3 Supreme Today 318. (v) The punishment awarded to the appellant is disproportionate to the charges and is excessive and harsh and as a matter of fact, a lenient view should have been taken against the appellant. Reference has been made to the case of Md. Mister Azad Vs. State of Bihar & others reported in 2004(1) JCR 420 and in the case of V.N. Singh Vs. The Central Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. Reported in 2004(3) JLJR 1 . 9. The appellant was earlier proceeded departmentally and was awarded punishment of reversion to Junior Management Grade at the lowest level, while he was posted at Jugsalai. When the Order of punishment of reversion to Junior Management Grade at lowest stage was sought to be reviewed and for which notice dated 29.03.1999 was issued to the appellant, he preferred C.W.J.C. No. 444 of 1989 (R) challenging the impugned order of reversion as well as the notice dated 29.03.1999. The said writ petition was dismissed vide Judgment dated 18.03.1991 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition) directing the appellant to raise all the points before the reviewing authority. Thereafter, when the reviewing authority passed an order dated 08.07.1993 upholding the punishment of reversion to Junior Management Grade at lowest stage, the appellant challenged the same by filing C.W.J.C. No. 56 of 1996 (R). 10. The brief facts of L.P.A. No. 261 of 2007. Thereafter, when the reviewing authority passed an order dated 08.07.1993 upholding the punishment of reversion to Junior Management Grade at lowest stage, the appellant challenged the same by filing C.W.J.C. No. 56 of 1996 (R). 10. The brief facts of L.P.A. No. 261 of 2007. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant, who at the relevant time, was holding the post of Branch Manager in Jugsalai Branch of State Bank of India, for the following charges:- (i) The appellant acted beyond his discretionary powers by sanctioning a contingent limit of Rs.60,000/- in April, 1981 to M/s. National Foundry Engineering Works who were enjoying a cash credit limit of Rs.70,000/- sanctioned by the controlling office. Though the contingent limit was to be liquidate within two months, the borrower did not follow the terms of the loan and both the accounts became irregular. The appellant neither brought the adverse features to the notice of the controlling authority nor took any steps to regularize the position. A total outstanding of Rs.2,04,191.66 has since been transferred to Protested Bills Account and the Bank is thus faced with a huge financial loss. (ii) The appellant allegedly, in order to accommodate out of the way certain borrowers, financed them in different ways for the same activity. In his actions, the appellant was guided by ulterior motives which have proved highly detrimental to the Bank's interest. (iii) The appellant enhanced the credit limits of a number of units and also allowed overdrawing in their accounts although they were already running irregular and showing adverse features. The appellant was inspired in all these actions by ulterior motives because these were violative of all principles of normal lending. (iv) In respect of the following units financed by the appellant, while he made entries in the Unit Inspection Register on 4/5 occasions in 1983, giving the remarks “Inspected and found in order”, it has come to the notice that the units had wound up their business, if any, and were not in existence in 1983. The appellant, however, did neither report the adverse features to the controlling authority nor initiate any steps to recover the Bank's dues:- Name of the Unit Limit Present Outstanding (a) Lovely Electronics Rs.20,000/- Rs.43,271.93 (b) Sanjay Perfumery Products Rs.10,000/- Rs.13,665.76 (c) Kamal Stores Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,992.19 This is indicative of the appellant's malafide intentions. The appellant, however, did neither report the adverse features to the controlling authority nor initiate any steps to recover the Bank's dues:- Name of the Unit Limit Present Outstanding (a) Lovely Electronics Rs.20,000/- Rs.43,271.93 (b) Sanjay Perfumery Products Rs.10,000/- Rs.13,665.76 (c) Kamal Stores Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,992.19 This is indicative of the appellant's malafide intentions. (v) The appellant allowed an overdraft of Rs.20,000/- to M/s. Alka Exhibitors with ulterior motive and sent false advice to the controlling authority that the family members of the owner of the unit were having fixed deposits of Rs.1.50 Lakh at the Branch. However, when the controlling authority asked the appellant to note lien on the Term Deposit Receipts, it was found that there was no fixed deposit in the name of any person related to the unit. The appellant thus tried to mislead the controlling authority by giving false information. (vi) The Unit Inspection Register was not maintained at the Branch before 1983 and even after the introduction of the register in 1983, no regard was paid to regular inspection of units and false/haphazard entries were made in the register. The appellant was granted leave from 31.08.1983 to 03.09.1983 which he got extended up to 09.09.1983. The appellant, however, initiated the Inspection Register in taken of having inspected 46 units on 06.09.1983 whereas the address given in his leave application was of Dalmianagar. Similarly, the register shows that the appellant inspected the Unit – M/s. Associated Engineering Works on 19.06.1983 when he was actually on leave. It appears that the appellant was making entries in the inspection register without visiting the units. This shows the dishonest intention of the appellant. (vii) The appellant did not submit the PCR-I control return to his controlling authority in respect of the enhancements granted by him to the various borrowers and thus, kept them in dark about the developments at the Branch allegedly with ulterior motive. The appraisal of credit requirement of the following units was done by the appellant in a perfunctory manner and limits, were sanctioned arbitrarily:- Name of the Unit Limits sanctioned (a) M/s. Fancy Stores Rs.50,000/- (b) M/s. B. Das Marble Tiles Rs.80,000/- (c) M/s. Mata Tools Rs.2,00,000/- (ix) During 1983, the appellant deputed Shri J.M. Bhank, Messenger to collect stock statement from various borroers and paid his conveyance charges on that count on a regular basis. This was not in keeping with the Bank's laid down instructions and amounted to transgression of authority on his part. (x) During his tenure at Jugslai Branch, the appellant allegedly acquired a double storeyed building at Dalmianagar, the sources of funds for which remain unexplained. (xi) The appellant's aforesaid irregularities not only established his failure to serve the Bank with diligence, devotion, honesty and integrity as required in terms of Rule 32(4) of State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules but also indictes malafides on his part. 11. After the departmental enquiry, the appellant was found guilty and then by order dated 12.08.1988, he was inflicted with a punishment of compulsory retirement in terms of Rule 49(1) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. The appellant preferred an appeal against the said order dated 12.08.1988 and the appellate authority altered the punishment of compulsory retirement to one of reversion to Junior Management Grade at the lowest stage. The appellant challenged the said order of the disciplinary authority as well as of the appellate authority in C.W.J.C. No. 444 of 1989 (R). During the pendency of the writ application, he came to learn that the reviewing authority are proposing to review the order of the appellate authority and thereby, issued notice to the appellant to show cause as to why the order of punishment passed by the appellate authority be not reviewed. The appellant challenged the said notice also in C.W.J.C. No. 444 of 1989 (R) by way of amendment. Several points were raised on behalf of the appellant in the said writ application including in plea that Rule 51(3) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules was ultra vires to the provisions of Section 49 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 since it did not envisage framing of rule empowering any authority to review an order passed by the authority. The said writ application was dismissed on 18.03.1991 holding that the said Rule 51(3) was not ultra vires to the provisions of the State Bank of India Act and that the reviewing authority had the jurisdiction to review its order. However, this Court gave liberty to the appellant to raise all the points before the reviewing authority. The said writ application was dismissed on 18.03.1991 holding that the said Rule 51(3) was not ultra vires to the provisions of the State Bank of India Act and that the reviewing authority had the jurisdiction to review its order. However, this Court gave liberty to the appellant to raise all the points before the reviewing authority. The reviewing authority, vide his order dated 08.07.1993, taking lenient view of the matter, felt that the punishment involving cessation of service need not be imposed upon the appellant but at the same time, it held that the appellant deserves serious deterrent penalty taking into account the gravity of offence, the punishment of reversion to Junior Management Grade at the lowest stage, as ordered by the appellate authority, was held to serve the purpose and the ends of justice and, thereby, upheld the order of the appellate authority by which the appellant was awarded the penalty of punishment of reversion to Junior Management Grade at the lowest stage. The said order of review also has been challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 56 of 1996 (R). 12. After hearing counsel for the parties, learned Single Judge vide Judgment dated 15.06.2007, dismissed both the Writ Petitions on the ground that the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant are not tenable in the eyes of law and the Judgments cited by the learned counsel do not help him since the impugned order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as revisionary authority were in accordance with law and hence required no interference. Learned Single Judge further held that the Branch Manager (writ petitioner) was proceeded departmentally for the serious charges and as such, considering all the materials, gravity of the charge, misconduct on the part of the petitioner/appellant, he has been rightly awarded punishment of removal from the service. Being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 15.06.2007, the appellant has preferred both the Letters Patent Appeal. 13. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant assisted by Mr. Saurav Arun submitted that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and has been passed mechanically without appreciating the provisions of law. Learned Senior counsel assails the impugned Judgment on the following grounds:- (i) Whether the earlier punishment can be taken into consideration for awarding punishment which was not matter of charge? Saurav Arun submitted that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and has been passed mechanically without appreciating the provisions of law. Learned Senior counsel assails the impugned Judgment on the following grounds:- (i) Whether the earlier punishment can be taken into consideration for awarding punishment which was not matter of charge? (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled for copy of the enquiry report before inflicting of punishment? (iii) Whether the appellant was entitled to be served with a copy of the order of the disciplinary authority differing from the findings of the enquiry officer? (iv) Whether copy of the enquiry report was served before inflicting of the major punishment by the disciplinary authority? Learned Sr. Counsel submitted that non-supply of the enquiry report before awarding punishment was in complete violation of Rule 68(5) of the State Bank of India (Officers' Service) Rule. Learned Sr. counsel further argued that the earlier punishments were taken into consideration which was not a matter of charge and as such, on this score itself, the order of punishment vitiates, which was not appreciated by the learned Single Judge, neither interferred in the impugned order though the earlier punishment was taken into consideration for awarding punishment, without it being a matter of charge. As regards the grounds Nos. 2 and 3, learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the petitioner/ appellant ought to have been served by the disciplinary authority with the reasons so recorded by the disciplinary authority for disagreement with the enquiry officer and explanation had not been sought and as such, the order of punishment would stand vitiated. As regards 3rd ground, learned Sr. Counsel submitted that non-supply of the enquiry report before punishment was imposed, also vitiates the punishment as all these aforesaid grounds leads to complete violation of cardinal principles of natural justice and as such, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the finding of the learned Single Judge affirming order of punishment are fit to be set aside and quashed. In order to strengthen his arguments, learned Sr. Counsel has relied on the following Judgments: (i) Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in (2010) 11 SCC 278 (ii) Punjab National Bank Vs. K.K. Verma reported in (2010) 13 SCC 494 . (iii) AIR 1994 SC 1074 – Managing Director, ECIL Vs. B. Karunakaran. (iv) Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. Counsel has relied on the following Judgments: (i) Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in (2010) 11 SCC 278 (ii) Punjab National Bank Vs. K.K. Verma reported in (2010) 13 SCC 494 . (iii) AIR 1994 SC 1074 – Managing Director, ECIL Vs. B. Karunakaran. (iv) Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in AIR 1999 SC 3734 (v) Punjab National Bank and another Vs. Kunj Behari Mishra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 14. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed contention of the learned Sr. Counsel. Learned counsel fairly submitted that though the past records were not specifically mentioned in the memo of charge, nothing wrong was there in consideration of the same as before awarding the major punishment of removal, it was necessary to look into the entirety of the matter. Learned counsel argued that in course of investigation conducted by the regional office, serious irregularities were found in working of the Branch of which the appellant was the Branch Manager and he was found acting beyond its sanctioning limits. It was further submitted that contention of the learned Sr. Counsel that he was not supplied enquiry report, is incorrect and copy of the enquiry report was duly furnished to him and as a matter of fact, the order of disciplinary authority which was communicated to the petitioner, contained in its enquiry copy of the enquiry report. Learned counsel further submitted that the charges were very serious and grave in nature and according to the gravity of charge of misconduct, the punishment awarded was adequate and the appeal of the appellant is fit to be dismissed and order of the learned Single Judge requires no interference. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the following Judgments:- (i) AIR 1994 SC (Suppl) Vol 2, Page 468 (ii) (1998) 4 SCC 310 – Union Bank of India Vs. Viswa Mohan 15. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that cardinal principles of natural justice cannot be given a go-bye. The learned Single Judge, though agreeing to the contention raised by Sr. Viswa Mohan 15. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that cardinal principles of natural justice cannot be given a go-bye. The learned Single Judge, though agreeing to the contention raised by Sr. Counsel for the petitioner/appellant observed- “From bare perusal of the aforesaid rule, it appears that learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission that it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to record his reason if he disagree with any finding of the disciplinary authority and for such disagreement, he should record his own finding on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for such purpose.” It is admitted fact that the disciplinary authority did not assign reasons neither the appellant was informed of the reasons which was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority. The issue is no more resintegra. In S.P. Malhotra Vs. Punjab National Bank and others [ 2013(4) Supreme 590 ], at para-8 it has been held that Kunj Behari Misra [ AIR 1998 SC 2713 ] itself was the case where the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on 12.12.1983 and passed the order on 15.12.1983 imposing the punishment and immediately thereafter, the delinquent officers therein stood superannuated on 31.12.1983. It is further mentioned there that in Kunj Behari Misra (Supra), this Court held as under: “19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” [Emphasis supplied] Regards the aforesaid issue, the order of punishment would stand vitiated in case the reason so recorded by the disciplinary authority for disagreement with the enquiry officer had not been supplied to the delinquent and his explanation had not been sought. 16. It has been admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that copy of the enquiry report was duly furnished to him and as a matter of fact, the order of disciplinary authority, which was communicated to the appellant, contains in its enquiry copy of the enquiry report. From the admission itself by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is crystal clear that copy of the enquiry report was not served to the petitioner/ appellant before passing the order of punishment by the authority. The issue regarding the serving of the enquiry report and at what stage it has to be served for enabling the appellant to file a proper detailed representation before the disciplinary authority was taken into consideration by the Constitutional Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director ECIL, Hyderabad etc. Vs. B. Karunakaran etc. reported in AIR 1994 SC 1074 . It is relevant to quote Para 20 and 24 of the said Judgment. “20. The findings or recommended punishment by the enquiry officer are likely to affect the mind of the disciplinary authority in his concluding the guilt or penalty to be imposed. The delinquent is, therefore, entitled to meet the reasoning, controvert the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer or is entitled to explain the effect of the evidence recorded. Unless the copy of the report is supplied to him, he would be in dark to know the findings, the reasons in support thereof or nature of the recommendation on penalty. The delinquent is, therefore, entitled to meet the reasoning, controvert the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer or is entitled to explain the effect of the evidence recorded. Unless the copy of the report is supplied to him, he would be in dark to know the findings, the reasons in support thereof or nature of the recommendation on penalty. He would point out all the factual or legal errors committed by the enquiry officer. He may also persuade the disciplinary authority that the finding is based on no evidence or the relevant material evidence was not considered or overlooked by the enquiry officer in coming to the conclusions, with a view to persuade the disciplinary authority to disagree with the enquiry officer and to consider his innocence of the charge, or even that the guilt as to the misconduct has not been established on the evidence on records or disabuse the initial impression formed in the minds of the disciplinary authority on consideration of the enquiry report. Even if the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that charge or charges is/ are proved, the case may not warrant imposition of any penalty. He may plead mitigating or extenuating circumstances to impose no punishment or a lesser punishment. For this purpose the delinquent needs reasonable opportunity or fair play in action. Th supply of the copy or the report is neither an empty formality, nor a ritual, but aims to digress the direction of the disciplinary authority from his derivative conclusions from the report to the palliative path of fair consideration. The denial of the supply of the copy, therefore, causes to the delinquent a grave prejudice and avoidable injustice which cannot be cured or mitigated in appeal or at a challenge under Art. 226 of the Constitution or S. 19 of the Tribunal Act or other relevant provisions. Ex. Post facto opportunity does not efface the past impression formed by the disciplinary authority against the delinquent, however, professedly to be fair to the delinquent. The lurking suspicion always lingers in the mind of the delinquent that the disciplinary authority was not objective and he was treated unfairly. Ex. Post facto opportunity does not efface the past impression formed by the disciplinary authority against the delinquent, however, professedly to be fair to the delinquent. The lurking suspicion always lingers in the mind of the delinquent that the disciplinary authority was not objective and he was treated unfairly. To alleviate such an impression and to prevent injustice or miscarriage of justice at the threshold, the disciplinary authority should supply the copy of the report, consider objectively the records, the evidence, the report and the explanation offered by the delinquent and make up his mind on proof of the charge or the nature of the penalty. The supply of the copy of the report is thus, a sine qua non for a valid, fair, just and proper procedure to defend the delinquent himself effectively and efficaciously. The denial thereof is offending not only Art. 311(2) but also violates Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution. … … … … 24. It is now settled law that the proceedings must be just, fair and reasonable and negation thereof offend Arts. 14 and 21. It is well settled law that principle of natural justice are integral part of Art. 14. No decision prejudicial to a party should be taken without affording an opportunity or supplying the material which is the basis for the decision. The enquiry report constitutes fresh material which has great persuasive force or effect on the mind of the disciplinary authority. The supply of the report along with the final order is like a post mortem certificate with purifying odour. The failure to supply copy thereof to the delinquent would be unfair procedure offending not only Arts. 14, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution, but also the principles of natural justice. The contention on behalf of the Govt./ management that the report is not evidence adduced during such enquiry envisaged under proviso to Art. 311(2) is also devoid of substance. It is settled law that Evidence Act has no application to the enquiry conducted during the disciplinary proceedings. The evidence adduced is not in strict conformity with Indian Evidence Act, though the essential principle of fair play envisaged in the Evidence Act are applicable. What was meant by 'evidence' in the proviso to Art. 311(2) is the totality of the materials collected during the enquiry including the report of the enquiry officer forming part of that material. The evidence adduced is not in strict conformity with Indian Evidence Act, though the essential principle of fair play envisaged in the Evidence Act are applicable. What was meant by 'evidence' in the proviso to Art. 311(2) is the totality of the materials collected during the enquiry including the report of the enquiry officer forming part of that material. Therefore, when reliance is sought to be placed, by the disciplinary authority, on the report of the enquiry officer for proof of the charge or for imposition of the penalty, then it is incumbent that the copy thereof should be supplied before reaching any conclusion either on proof of the charge or the nature of the penalty to be imposed on the proved charge or on both.” 17. The case law cited by the counsel for the respondents does not come to his help in view of the settled legal proposition as mentioned hereinabove and hence are distinquished. 18. In the present case, admittedly enquiry report was served along with the order of disciplinary authority and as such the appellant was bound to be prejudiced and the act of disciplinary authority was in complete violation of cardinal principles of natural justice. The delinquent is, therefore, entitled to meet the reasonings, controvert the conclusion reached by the enquiry officer or is entitled to explain the effect of evidence recorded. Unless copy of report is supplied to him, he would be in dark to know the findings. In the instant case it is also an admitted fact that the reasons assigned by the disciplinary authority for disagreement with the enquiry officer was also not supplied to the delinquent and his explanation has not been sought. In the circumstances, the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and is violative of cardinal principles of natural justice. 19. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid legal proposition and settled principles of law and in view of the fact that the impugned order dated 15.06.2007 suffers from legal infirmity and hence is fit to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.06.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 2310 of 1995 (R) with C.W.J.C. No. 56 of 1996(R) are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.06.2007, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 2310 of 1995 (R) with C.W.J.C. No. 56 of 1996(R) are hereby set aside. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 04.11.1993, passed by the disciplinary authority, as also the order dated 08.03.1995, passed by the appellate authority, as contained in Annexures-4 and 6 respectively to C.W.J.C. No. 2310 of 1995 (R), are hereby set aside. For the same reasons, the order dated 12.08.1988, passed by the disciplinary authority and the subsequent order dated 12.10.1988, passed by the appellate authority and the order dated 08.07.1993, passed by the reviewing authority as contained in Annexures-1, 2 and 4 to C.W.J.C. No. 56 of 1996 (R), are also, hereby, set aside. 20. Consequently, both the Letters Patent Appeal are allowed. The appellant has already superannuated from service and as such, is entitled for all consequential benefits in accordance with law including backwages. H.C. Mishra, J. : I agree.