JUDGMENT : (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) : Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs : “That, by means of this writ application, the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ(s)/Order(s) for quashing the Impugned appellate order issued under Memo No: 5031 communicated vide Memo No : 5701 dated 23.10.2019 (Annexure-13) as well as the order of punishment issued under Memo No: 776 dated 30.03.2016 (Annexure-9) whereby and whereunder the respondent No:3 discharged the petitioner from his service and deprived from salary for the period of suspension; And/Or for issuance of any such Writ(s) /Order(s) /Direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and for doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has been gross violation of the principles of natural justice in the present case and the enquiry proceedings was not conducted in compliance with the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that so far as 2nd show-cause notice is concerned, only the copy of the enquiry report was handed over to the petitioner, but the enclosures to the enquiry report were never handed over. 4. The learned counsel has next submitted that while responding to the 2nd show-cause notice, the petitioner had objected to the fact that the enclosures to the enquiry report were not handed over and accordingly demanded the same. However, the petitioner having no option, he filed response to the 2nd show-cause notice reserving his right to file additional reply to the 2nd show-cause. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order of dismissal was passed on 30.03.2016 without providing him the enclosures to the enquiry report and the objection raised by the petitioner in his 2nd show-cause reply with regard to non-furnishing of enclosures to the enquiry report has not been considered while passing the order of punishment. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that appeal was filed on 09.05.2016. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that appeal was filed on 09.05.2016. In the said memo of appeal also, specific plea was raised in connection with non-furnishing of enclosures to the enquiry report, but the appellate authority also did not consider this aspect of the matter and other points raised by the petitioner and dismissed the appeal vide impugned order dated 23.10.2019. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that while the appeal was pending and was not being disposed of, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 6850 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 09.07.2019 directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. 8. The learned counsel has also referred to paragraph 17 of the writ petition and submits that it has been specifically mentioned in paragraph 17 of the writ petition that the documents referred to in the enquiry report were not provided to the petitioner. He submits that such statement has not been denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. The learned counsel has submitted that enclosures to the enquiry report which formed a part of the enquiry report itself having not been handed over to the petitioner, the petitioner was deprived of giving proper response to the 2nd show-cause notice and accordingly, the impugned orders call for interference by this Court. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, has submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioner. The proceedings were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was given 2nd show-cause to which he responded. She submits that every aspect of the matter has been considered and therefore, the impugned orders do not call for interference under limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. However, during the course of argument the learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to point out any discussion in the impugned orders regarding non-furnishing of enclosures to the enquiry report to the petitioner though the enquiry report was admittedly served upon the petitioner. 11. 10. However, during the course of argument the learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to point out any discussion in the impugned orders regarding non-furnishing of enclosures to the enquiry report to the petitioner though the enquiry report was admittedly served upon the petitioner. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and the memo containing allegations against the petitioner was served upon him vide memo dated 29.06.2006. The petitioner denied the allegation vide letter dated 25.08.2006. However, the petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings in which the petitioner duly participated. The enquiry report is dated 29.09.2015 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The enquiry report by itself is referring to various annexures and at the end, it shows that there were enclosures to the extent of 82 pages which formed part of the enquiry report. The petitioner was issued 2nd show-cause notice dated 16.10.2015. The petitioner responded to the same by taking a specific plea that the enclosures to the enquiry report were not provided to the petitioner and demanded the same. However, the petitioner reserved his right to file detailed reply once the enclosures are received. The disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner vide impugned order dated 30.03.2016 without considering the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner regarding supply of enclosures to the enquiry report. 12. The petitioner filed appeal on 09.05.2016 and the memo of appeal is on record. In the memo of appeal also, the petitioner has raised a plea regarding non-furnishing of enclosures to the enquiry report and the final order was passed by the appellate authority on 23.10.2019. In the final order also, there is no discussion regarding furnishing of enclosures to the enquiry report to the petitioner. 13. In the present writ petition, similar grievance that the documents referred to in the enquiry report were not provided to the petitioner has been raised in paragraph 17 of the writ petition and such statement has not been denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. 14. 13. In the present writ petition, similar grievance that the documents referred to in the enquiry report were not provided to the petitioner has been raised in paragraph 17 of the writ petition and such statement has not been denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. 14. Thus, from the perusal of the records of this case and the pleadings on record, there is no doubt that the petitioner has been asking for the enclosures to the enquiry report right from his reply to the 2nd show-cause but the same was never taken care of by the respondents while passing the order of dismissal dated 30.03.2016 as well as the appellate order dated 23.10.2019. 15. This Court is of the considered view that non-furnishing of enclosures to the enquiry report to the petitioner which formed a part of the enquiry report in spite of his specific request to furnish the same cannot be justified in law and the respondents have no explanation for not furnishing the same to the petitioner. In fact, this aspect of the matter has not been addressed in the counter-affidavit nor the same has been addressed in the order of dismissal and also the order passed by the appellate authority. 16. In such circumstances, the impugned order of dismissal dated 30.03.2016 as well as the appellate order dated 23.10.2019 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law which are accordingly set-aside and the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority from the stage of the 2nd show-cause notice to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after providing a copy of the enclosures of the enquiry report to the petitioner and enabling him to file additional reply to the 2nd show cause. 17. The petitioner to appear before the disciplinary authority with a representation and a copy of the records of this case within a period of 15 days from today. The needful be done by the disciplinary authority in terms of the aforesaid observations and directions within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order. 18. This Court has not gone into the merits of the other points which have been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is open to the disciplinary authority to take a decision in accordance with law. 18. This Court has not gone into the merits of the other points which have been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition and it is open to the disciplinary authority to take a decision in accordance with law. The order of dismissal has been set-aside only for the purposes of passing fresh order on the 2nd show cause after providing a copy of the enclosures to the enquiry report and for no other purpose. 19. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 20. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.