ORDER : 1. The petitioner who was working as Auxiliary Nurse & Midwifery (ANM) in the Medical & Health Department filed the present writ petition by making following prayer:- “It is, therefore, humbly and most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to allow this writ petition and; (1) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 28.02.2005 (Annex-9) as well as the charge sheet dated 13.06.1997 (Annex-3) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service. (2) by further appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to adjust the leave of absence from duty against medical leaves, commuted leaves, privilege leaves, half pay leaves and leaves without pay and regularize the services of the petitioner for the said period. (3) or any other or further order or direction may kindly be passed which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (4) The cost of the litigation may kindly be allowed to the petitioner.” 2. The writ petition was taken up for hearing by this Court on 17.01.2017 and during the course of the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Voluntary Retirement from Service (VRS) application was moved by the petitioner on 07.03.1996 praying for her retirement w.e.f.30.06.1996 in terms of Rule 244(1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was not processed nor rejection of application was made within the period specified in the notice and as such the petitioner stood automatically retired. 3. This Court permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to amend the writ petition to incorporate the necessary facts with regard to the voluntary retirement of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed an application for amendment in the writ petition to incorporate the submissions and arguments in respect of voluntary retirement and this Court vide order dt.20.01.2017 allowed the amendment application and amended writ petition was taken on record. 4. The respondents were granted time to file counter affidavit and accordingly the respondents also filed reply to the amended writ petition. 5. 4. The respondents were granted time to file counter affidavit and accordingly the respondents also filed reply to the amended writ petition. 5. The amended writ of the petitioner, now contains the following prayer:- “Prayer It is, therefore, humbly and most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to allow this writ petition and; (1) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 28.02.2005 (Annex-9) as well as the charge sheet dated 13.06.1997 (Annex-3) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be reinstated in service. (2) By further appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to adjust the leave of absence from duty against medical leaves, commuted leaves, privilege leaves, half pay leaves and leaves without pay and regularize the services of the petitioner for the said period. (3) Or alternatively by appropriate writ, order or direction the petitioner be declared retired from service w.e.f. 30.06.1996 in pursuance to her application for voluntary retirement dated 07.03.1996 and the respondents be directed to release all the retirement benefits like pension, gratuity, provident fund etc to the petitioner along with interest @9% per annum. (4) Or any other or further order of direction may kindly be passed which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (5) The cost of the litigation may kindly be allowed to the petitioner.” 6. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of ANM on 07.01.1976. She submitted an application for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.06.1996. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide communication dt.01.07.1996, the application was rejected on account of not completing 20 years of qualifying service as well as on the ground that the case of the petitioner for sanction of leave for absence was pending. 4. She submitted an application for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.06.1996. The said application of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide communication dt.01.07.1996, the application was rejected on account of not completing 20 years of qualifying service as well as on the ground that the case of the petitioner for sanction of leave for absence was pending. 4. The petitioner has pleaded in her petition that the department issued a chargesheet to her dated 13.06.1997 wherein following allegations were leveled against her:- ^^vkjksi fooj.k i= Jhefr dqbuk jkst] efgyk LokLF; dk;ZdrkZ midsUnz /kkrksy ^^Cykd izk0Lok0dsUnz fHkuk;** ftyk vtesj vkjksi fooj.k i= la[;k&,d ;g fd vki Jhefr dqbZuk jkst] midsUnz /kkrksy ¼fHkuk;½ esa efgyk LokLF; dk;ZdrkZ ds in ij inLFkkfir gSA vki fnukad 1-3-96 ls viuh M~;wVh ls fujUrj vuqifLFkr py jgh gS tcfd vkius fdlh Hkh izdkj ds vodk'k gsrq uk rks vodk'k ij izLFkku djus dh Lohd`fr izkIr ugha dh ,oa LosPNkiwoZd vius drZO; ls vuqifLFkr jgh gSaA vkidks fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh izHkkjh izk0Lok0ds fHkuk; us vius i=kad@1676&78 fnukad 1-7-96 o Øekad 658&59 fnukad 18-2-97 rFkk mi eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh ¼i-d-½ vtesj us vius i= Øekad@8962&63 fnukad 16-7-96 ds }kjk vius drZO; ij mifLFkr gksus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA vki }kjk iwoZ esa Hkh fuEukfdar vof/k dks LosPNk ls vuqifLFkr jg pqdh gSA 11-5-91 ls 29-1-92 264 fnol 19-7-94 ls 15-12-94 153 fnol 7-9-95 ls 25-2-96 172 fnol 1-3-96 ls fujUrj blls Lor% gh Li"V gksrk gS fd vki LosPNk ls vuqifLFkr jgus dh vknh gSA vr% vki fnukad 1-3-96 ls vius drZO; ls LosPNk ls vuqifLFkr jgus dh nks"kh gSA vkjksi fooj.k la[;k & nks ;g fd fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh izHkkjh Cykd izk0Lok0dsUnz fHkuk; ds i=kad 1676&78 fnukad 1-7-96 o 658&59 fnukad 18-2-97 rFkk mi eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh ¼i-d-½ vtesj us vius i=kad@8962&63 fnukad 16-7-96 ds }kjk vkidks drZO; ij mifLFkr gksus ckcr fy[kk x;k] fdUrq vki vius dk;Z ij mifLFkr ugha gqbZA bl izdkj vius mPpvf/kdkfj;ksa ds vkns'kksa dh vogsyuk djus dh nks"kh gSA^ 8. The perusal of the charge-sheet shows that the respondents had made allegation that the petitioner was absent from duty since 01.03.1996 and she had not sent any application for seeking leave nor she had obtained the permission before leaving the job w.e.f. 01.03.1996. The perusal of the charge-sheet shows that the respondents had made allegation that the petitioner was absent from duty since 01.03.1996 and she had not sent any application for seeking leave nor she had obtained the permission before leaving the job w.e.f. 01.03.1996. It was further communicated to her that she was given notice by the In-Charge/Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Bhinay vide his letter dt.01.07.1996 and 18.02.1997 and further Dy.CMHO, Ajmer had also sent a letter dt.16.07.1996 to the petitioner to attend the duties. The respondents also informed that the petitioner was also absent on previous occasions. The charge No.2 was also in respect of the petitioner’s giving no response to join the duties in spite of letters written by the Medical Officer/In-Charge, Primary Health Centre, Bhinay and Deputy CMHO, Ajmer. 9. The petitioner has pleaded in her petition that after receipt of chargesheet, she had submitted her reply on 19.07.1997. The petitioner had pleaded in the reply that she had made an application for voluntary retirement on 07.03.1996 and her application was rejected only on the ground that she had not completing 20 years of service. The petitioner also pleaded that the competent authority/Sr.Medical Officer/In-Charge, Community Health Centre, Bhinay had sent his proposal vide letter dt.07.05.1996 and 28.06.1996 to grant permission to the petitioner but the leave applications of the petitioner were not decided. The petitioner also pointed out in her reply that she had reported back on duty on 15.07.1997 but she was not allowed to join her duties. The petitioner also explained that in respect of charge No.2, she had informed the authorities and due to serious domestic problems she was not able to join to her duties and she had sent the requisition information to the Department. The petitioner also highlighted the fact of non payment of salary to her for a considerable period. 10. The Disciplinary Authority/CMHO vide its order dt.29.07.1997 (Annex.6) decided to impose penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect. The Authority further made observation in the order that the petitioner had herself given in writing to be more vigilant and assured not to leave the Headquarters. The period of absence was ordered to be adjusted, as per Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and since earlier period of absence of petitioner was also to be regularized, separate order was required to be passed in this respect. The period of absence was ordered to be adjusted, as per Rule 86 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and since earlier period of absence of petitioner was also to be regularized, separate order was required to be passed in this respect. The operative portion of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority/CMHO dt.29.07.1997 is reproduced hereunder:- ^^deZpkjh ds Kkiu ds mRrj dk xgu v/;;u djus ij mRrj larks"ktud ugh ik;k x;k ysfdu deZpkjh us Hkfo"; eas dk;Z djus ,oa eq[;kokl ij jgus dk fyf[kr esa fn;k gSA deZpkjh dh ikfjokfjd ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks e/;sutj j[krs gq, muds inLFkkiu LFkku ij dsUnz¼vjkbZ½ esa fd;k tkrk gS ;g igys viuh mifLFkfr fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh izHkkjh] izk0Lok0ds0 vajkbZ dks nsosA lh-lh-,- fu;e 16 eas dk;Zokgh djrs gq, Jhefr dqbuk jkst dh ,d osruo`f) valap;h izHkko ls jksdh tkrh gSA vuqifLFkr le; dk lek;kstu jktLFkku lsok fu;e 86 esa dk;Zokgh djrs gq, lek;ksftr dh tkuh gS ysfdu deZpkjh dk blls iqoZ LoSfPNd vuqifLFkfr dk Hkh vHkh rd lek;kstu ugha fd;k x;k gS vr% buds vkns'k vyx ls izlkfjr fd;s tk;saxsA*^ 11. The petitioner felt aggrieved against the said order and she filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide its order dt.21.09.2001 while accepting the appeal of the petitioner, set aside the penalty order dt.29.07.1997 and remanded the matter back to the Director, Medical & Health Services, Jaipur to pass a fresh order after following due process and by giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to represent her case. The order passed by the Appellate Authority is reproduced hereunder:- ^^mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij vihy vihykFkhZ Lohdkj dh tkdj eq[; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; vf/kdkjh] vtesj&eq[;ky; C;koj ds vkns'k fnukad 29-7-97 dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS ,oa izdj.k funs'kd fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; lsok esa jktLFkku t;iqj dks fjek.M dj funsZ'k fn;s tkrs gS fd izdj.k dk foLr`r ijh{k.k dj leqfpr izfØ;k viukrs gq, ,oa vihykFkhZ dks lquokbZ dk leqfpr volj nsrs gq, vko';d dk;Zokgh djs ,oa leqfpr vkns'k ikfjr djsA^^ 12. The petitioner has pleaded in her petition that she had received a letter dt.27.02.2003 wherein it was informed that Enquiry Officer has been appointed to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner and one Joint Director, Medical & Health Services, Zone, Ajmer was appointed as Enquiry Officer. 13. The petitioner in her petition has pleaded that after appointment of Enquiry Officer, the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. 13. The petitioner in her petition has pleaded that after appointment of Enquiry Officer, the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer after completing the enquiry submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner was not supplied the copy of enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority without issuing any show cause notice, issued the penalty order dt.28.02.2005 (Annex.9) wherein the petitioner has been held guilty of both the charges and she has been dismissed from service. 14. The petitioner has submitted in her petition that the Enquiry Officer, conducted the enquiry against the petitioner, without considering the explanation submitted by her in respect of non accepting her application for voluntary retirement and further the absence of the petitioner was duly explained, the Enquiry Officer submitted the report and Disciplinary Authority accordingly passed the impugned order. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms.Ashish Joshi has made following submissions:- 1. The petitioner was not given any show cause-notice before passing the punishment order by the Disciplinary Authority. 2. The Disciplinary Authority ought to have supplied copy of enquiry report to the petitioner and in absence of supplying enquiry report, the case of the petitioner has been prejudiced and she was not able to defend herself to controvert the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. 3. On the self-same charges initially the penalty of stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect was imposed and later on by the impugned order in respect of same chargesheet, the order of termination of service has been passed. 4. The Disciplinary Authority has passed the order in a mechanical manner and he has not recorded his own findings on the charges said to be proved against the petitioner. 5. Rejection of application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement vide (annex.-2) is illegal order. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had submitted her application for voluntary retirement on 07.03.1996 and petitioner since had entered in service on 07.01.1976 she had completed minimum 20 years of qualifying service and rejection of her application on the ground of not completing 20 years service, is per-se illegal. 6. Learned counsel has further submitted that second ground of not accepting the petitioner’s application for voluntary retirement on account of not sanctioning her leave is also not tenable. 16. 6. Learned counsel has further submitted that second ground of not accepting the petitioner’s application for voluntary retirement on account of not sanctioning her leave is also not tenable. 16. Counsel submitted that 20 years of qualifying service will not exclude the period on which petitioner remained on leave or department treated the same to be an absence from duty. Counsel submitted that once maximum period of 90 days was over from the date of submitting the application, the petitioner stood voluntarily retired on 30.06.1996 and communication subsequently vide order dt.01.07.1996 is bad in the eye of law. 17. Per contra Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Govt. Counsel has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has passed a legal and perfect order imposing the penalty of removal from service as the petitioner was absent from duty continuously from 01.03.1996 till the charge-sheet was issued to her. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was also guilty of serious misconduct of remaining absent on previous occasions i.e. 11.05.1991 to 29.01.1992 i.e. 264 days, 19.07.1994 to 15.02.1994 i.e. 153 days and 07.09.1995 to 25.02.1996 i.e. 172 days. Learned counsel submitted that the Disciplinary Authority found that the petitioner was absent for 560 days and as such the Disciplinary Authority after considering the entire facts of the case, rightly came to the conclusion to pass the penalty order. 18. Counsel submitted that the petitioner had not produced any tangible evidence in the enquiry proceedings by which it could be inferred that she was prevented from any justification to attend the duties. Counsel submitted that the petitioner also did not produce any evidence in her defence and as such she had admitted the charge levelled against her of remaining absent. 19. Counsel submitted that the plea of the petitioner that enquiry report was not given to her, is without any substance as during enquiry, the petitioner has been afforded ample opportunity to defend herself. The non supply of enquiry report until it results to any prejudice to the petitioner, cannot be fatal and no employee can raise such a grievance. 20. Counsel submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has considered the report of the Enquiry Officer and he has not passed the order in a mechanical manner, as has been alleged. Counsel submitted that that there is no disparity or inconsistency in respect of punishment being imposed upon the petitioner. 20. Counsel submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has considered the report of the Enquiry Officer and he has not passed the order in a mechanical manner, as has been alleged. Counsel submitted that that there is no disparity or inconsistency in respect of punishment being imposed upon the petitioner. Counsel submitted that earlier order passed dt.29.07.1997 was on the basis of an undertaking given by the petitioner to attend the duties regularly and as such by having a liberal attitude, the authority pardoned the misconduct of the petitioner and had imposed the minor penalty. Counsel submitted that after appeal of the petitioner being remanded back, the Disciplinary Authority was to consider the entire facts of the case and after proper enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority found the charges proved against the petitioner and there cannot be estoppel against the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order. 21. Counsel has submitted that the petitioner had not completed the requisite qualifying service for making her entitled to seek voluntary retirement as there was a period of absence of the petitioner which was required to be excluded for the purpose of computing 25 years of qualifying service. Counsel submitted that the qualifying service means that the person must continuously work and if there is absence from the duty, the same cannot be taken into account. 22. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in B.J.Shelat Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in (1972) 8 SCC 202. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Disciplinary Authority cannot take action against the Government servant if such person has voluntarily retired and his statutory period of notice expires. Counsel has further relied upon the judgment of this Court in Chiranji Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 1991 (1) RLR 693 . Counsel submitted that after the notice is given of voluntary retirement, the same becomes effective automatically after lapse of notice period of three months and service of charge-sheet itself is not legal and valid. 23. Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Govt. Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Counsel submitted that after the notice is given of voluntary retirement, the same becomes effective automatically after lapse of notice period of three months and service of charge-sheet itself is not legal and valid. 23. Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Govt. Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Sukhveer Singh reported in (2018) 1 SCC 231 in order to support the submission that mere non supply of enquiry report does not warrant automatic reinstatement of delinquent-employee and incumbent has to plead and prove that he suffered serious prejudice due to non supply of enquiry report. 24. I have heard both the counsel and perused the entire material available on record. 25. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given any show cause notice, this Court before dealing with the said submission thinks it appropriate to quote the Rule 16 (8), 16(9), 16(10) & 16(11), which read as follows:- “16. Procedure for imposing major penalties- (1) to (7) XX XX XX (8) The record of the inquiry shall include: - (i) the charges framed against the Government Servant and the statement of allegations furnished to him under sub-rule (2) ; (ii) his written statement of defence, if any ; (iii)the oral evidence taken in the course of the enquiry ; (iv)the documentary evidence considered in the course of the enquiry ; (v) the orders, if any, made by the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiring Authority in regard to inquiry ; and (vi) a report setting out the findings on each charge and the reasons therefore. (9) The Disciplinary Authority shall, if it is not the Inquiring Authority, consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge. The Disciplinary Authority may while considering the report of the Enquiring Authority for just and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing remand the case for further/de-novo enquiry, in case it has reason to believe that the enquiry already conducted has been laconic in some respect or the other. The Disciplinary Authority may while considering the report of the Enquiring Authority for just and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing remand the case for further/de-novo enquiry, in case it has reason to believe that the enquiry already conducted has been laconic in some respect or the other. (10) The disciplinary authority shall forward a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority a copy of the report of the inquiring authority to the Government Servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days. (10A) The disciplinary authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose and the same to be forwarded to the Government Servant for his representation along with a copy of the report of the inquiry. (10B) The Disciplinary Authority shall consider the representation, if any, submitted by the Government Servant before proceeding further in the manner specified in sub-rules (11) and (11 A). (11) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iii) of rule 14 should be imposed on the Government Servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in rule 17, make an order imposing such penalty. Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing any such penalty on the Government Servant. Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing any such penalty on the Government Servant. (11A) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (iv) to (vii) of rule 14 should be imposed on the Government Servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the Government Servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed. Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing any such penalty on the Government Servant.” 26. The perusal of Rule 16(10) clearly shows that the Disciplinary Authority is required to forward a copy of the report of the enquiry and the delinquent is required to submit, if he/she desires, his written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within 15 days. 27. The facts in the present case clearly reveal that the respondents did not furnish any show cause notice to the petitioner nor they furnished the report of the enquiry to the petitioner. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the Apex Court in the case of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (supra) has laid down the law that the incumbent has to plead and prove that he suffered serious prejudice due to non supply of enquiry report, this Court finds that the petitioner in her petition has specifically raised grounds (E) & (F) where the petitioner has pleaded that she has been prevented there filing her representation due to non-supply of enquiry report. The petitioner has pleaded that the fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard and defending her case, has been defeated in the instant case as no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. 28. The petitioner has pleaded that the fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard and defending her case, has been defeated in the instant case as no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. 28. This Court finds that in absence of any specific denial by the respondents in their pleadings, the presumption has to be drawn that the petitioner has pleaded that prejudice has been caused to her in defending her case in absence of enquiry report as well as show cause notice. 29. A close perusal of judgment of the Apex Court also makes it clear on facts that the Apex Court was considering a case where the delinquent-employee had ample opportunity to submit his version after perusal of report of Enquiry Officer. The delinquent further utilized the opportunity of placing response to the enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority. The relevant para 10 & 11 of the judgment are quoted hereunder:- “10. It is clear from the above that mere non-supply of the inquiry report does not automatically warrant re-instatement of the delinquent employee. It is incumbent upon on the delinquent employee to plead and prove that he suffered a serious prejudice due to the non-supply of the inquiry report. We have examined the writ petition filed by the Respondent and we find no pleading regarding any prejudice caused to the Respondent by the non-supply of the inquiry report prior to the issuance of the show cause notice. The Respondent had ample opportunity to submit his version after perusing the report of the inquiry officer. The Respondent utilised the opportunity of placing his response to the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority. The High Court committed an error in allowing the writ petition filed by the Respondent without examining whether any prejudice was caused to the delinquent employee by the supply of the inquiry officer’s report along with the show cause notice. We are satisfied that there was no prejudice caused to the respondent by the supply of the report of the inquiry officer along with the show cause notice. Hence, no useful purpose will be served by a remand to the court below to examine the point of prejudice. 11. The Respondent contended that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the delinquency. It is submitted that he was working as a driver and the irregularity in issuance of tickets was committed by the conductor. Hence, no useful purpose will be served by a remand to the court below to examine the point of prejudice. 11. The Respondent contended that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the delinquency. It is submitted that he was working as a driver and the irregularity in issuance of tickets was committed by the conductor. We are in agreement with the findings of the inquiry officer which were accepted by the disciplinary authority and approved by the appellate authority and the labour court that the Respondent had committed the misconduct in collusion with the conductor. It is no more res integra that acts of corruption/misappropriation cannot be condoned, even in cases where the amount involved is meagre. (See - UPSRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma).” 30. There is no quarrel on the proposition of the law that mere non-supply of enquiry report does not warrant automatic reinstatement of delinquent-employee and further the incumbent has to plead and prove that he suffered serious prejudice due to non-supply of enquiry report. The Apex Court also further made it clear that if a person has an opportunity to submit his version after perusing the report of Enquiry Officer, which is furnished to him along with show cause notice, no such plea can be taken by the delinquent that his case has been prejudiced. 31. In the instant case, the enquiry report, as contended, has not been filed with the reply and the petitioner has not been given enquiry report as well as show cause notice. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court and requirement of Rule 16(10) of the Rules, 1958, this Court finds that the impugned order is not legally sustainable. 32. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order of termination of service and on the same facts earlier the authority had passed an order of imposing stoppage of one grade increment without cumulative effect, this Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority though had complete discretion to pass fresh order after the Appellate Authority had remanded the matter back. However, the Appellate Authority had also observed and directed that principles of natural justice would be required to be followed and entire procedure of CCA Rules, 1958 was also to be followed by the Disciplinary Authority. However, the Appellate Authority had also observed and directed that principles of natural justice would be required to be followed and entire procedure of CCA Rules, 1958 was also to be followed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority without considering the entire facts and record of enquiry, relied upon the report of Enquiry Officer and passed the order by which services of the petitioner were terminated. This Court finds that the said exercise of power by the Disciplinary Authority is without due application of mind and the petitioner has been punished in such a manner where all the service rendered by her has been lost. 33. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner after issuance of chargesheet and her penalty order being set aside by the Appellate Authority on 21.09.2001, had rendered the service till the penalty order dt.28.08.2005 came to be passed, thus, the petitioner has rendered services after issuance of chargesheet for remaining absence and after working for about four years, the impugned termination order came to be passed, this Court finds that in absence of proper justification of the authorities to give fair opportunity to the petitioner to defend herself, her alleged misconduct cannot be termed to be such as to result into punishment of termination of service. 34. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that since the petitioner had participated in the enquiry proceedings and as such due compliance of CCA Rules, 1958 and principles of natural justice have been made, this Court finds that even if the employee participates in the enquiry proceedings, nevertheless, after the enquiry report is submitted to Disciplinary Authority, the delinquent is required to be given show cause notice along with the enquiry report. Mere participation in the enquiry proceedings, would not meet the requirement of law and a person cannot be deprived to at least have a show cause notice along with copy of the enquiry report, before final view is taken by the Disciplinary Authority. 35. Mere participation in the enquiry proceedings, would not meet the requirement of law and a person cannot be deprived to at least have a show cause notice along with copy of the enquiry report, before final view is taken by the Disciplinary Authority. 35. So far as reliance placed by learned counsel on the judgment of the Apex Court in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (supra), this Court has already observed that non-supply of enquiry report does not result into automatic reinstatement of the delinquent-employee, however, at some point of time the report has to be furnished to the delinquent to show that the person has a defence to make representation and has a right to controvert the findings. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted that in the instant case, no prejudice has been caused. 36. The objection of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had no proof with respect to her absence and in past also she had remained absent from duty, this Court finds that as far as past period of absence is concerned, the respondents have not placed on record any punishment order being passed in respect of the earlier alleged absence. This Court in absence of any punishment order being placed on record, is not in a position to comment upon conduct of the petitioner in respect of her earlier absence. 37. The objection of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had no proof or evidence to support her absence, suffice it to say that the petitioner right from the stage of filing reply has explained to the respondents that her application for voluntary retirement was pending with them and further the alleged absence was under consideration for regularization and the Disciplinary Authority while passing the penalty order at the first instance on 29.01.1997 itself recorded a finding that the period of absence from duty of the petitioner would be regularized as per Rule 86 of RSR, 1951. 38. This Court finds that the charge of remaining absent is a serious misconduct but nevertheless the same is required to be proved. 38. This Court finds that the charge of remaining absent is a serious misconduct but nevertheless the same is required to be proved. The delinquent or the Government servant, on his own, cannot remain absent from duty, however, if there are justified reasons and there are situations where the employee can explain that his absence from duty is not willful by producing evidence, the authorities cannot make up their mind by holding the person guilty of remaining willfully absent. 39. In the instant case, the facts which have come on record clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has been rendering her services since 07.01.1976 and after the issuance of chargesheet also she has worked with the respondents, after appeal being accepted in the year 2001, till the impugned order came to be passed. The action of the respondents cannot be held to be justified and legal in taking the decision of terminating the services of the petitioner. 40. This Court has since dealt with the issue of punishment, which has been imposed upon petitioner, does not deem it necessary to go into the question/issue of acceptance of application of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement from service. Since the punishment order itself has been found to be not in consonance with the law and as such this Court is not required to go into the validity of the action of the department whereby they have rejected her application seeking voluntary retirement from service. 41. This Court finds that the petitioner who has attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2013, cannot be put back on the job. However, this Court finds that the petitioner has rendered her services since 07.01.1976 and further when her services were terminated vide order dt.29.07.1997, she joined back in pursuance of her appeal being allowed on 21.09.2001 and she continued upto 28.02.2005. 42. This Court finds that the impugned order dt.28.02.2005 requires to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the intervening period i.e. from the date of termination till her age of superannuation, for the purpose of revision of her pension, post retrial benefits, etc. on notional basis. However, the petitioner would not be entitled for any monetary benefit for the intervening period mentioned above. The respondents are directed to consider the intervening period i.e. from the date of termination till her age of superannuation, for the purpose of revision of her pension, post retrial benefits, etc. on notional basis. However, the petitioner would not be entitled for any monetary benefit for the intervening period mentioned above. The appropriate consequential orders may be passed by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 43. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed.