S.H.A. Raza, J. - (1.) The main point involved in this petition is as to whether it is incumbent upon the appointing authority to serve to the delinquent with the copy of the entire enquiry report including the proposed punishment. It is the admitted case of the parties that the delinquent was served with the copy of the enquiry report, but that part of the enquiry report in which enquiry officer proposed punishment was not furnished to the petitioner. The enquiry officer had proposed the stoppage of three increment and entry in his character-roll withholding the subsistence allowance. Differing with the proposed punishment, the punishing authority passed the order, removing the petitioner from the services.
(2.) In this connection the petitioner placed reliance upon Rule 55- A CIVIL Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, which reads as under ' - "After the inquiry against a Government servant has been completed and after the punishment authority has arrived at provisional conclusions in regard to the penalty to be imposed, the Government servant charged shall, if the penalty imposed is dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, be supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiry officer prepared under Rule 55 together with the recommendations, if any, in regard to punishment, made by the officer conducting the enquiry, and be given a notice stating the penalty proposed to be imposed on him and calling upon him to submit, by a particular date which affords him reasonable time, such representation as he may wish to make on the proposed penalty, provided that such representation shall be based on the evidence adduced during the inquiry." Provided ; that "if for sufficient reason, the punishing authority disagrees with any part or whole of the report of the inquiring officer above mentioned, the points of such disagreement together with a brief statement of the grounds thereof shall also be communicated to the government servant charged."
(3.) After the 42nd amendment of the Constitution Rule 55-A was deleted with effect from 27-4-1977. It is admitted case of the parties that when the order of dismissal was passed i.e. on 25-4-1977 the said rule was in operation, hence it was incumbent upon the appointing authority to have proceeded with against the petitioner in accordance with the Rule 55-A indicated above.;