Punishment of reversion – Propriety of – Disciplinary proceedings – Departmental enquiry – Punishment of compulsory retirement – Appellate Authority altered the punishment to one of reversion – Reviewing Authority sustained the punishment of reversion – Writ petition by the delinquent dismissed by Single Judge of High Court – Division Bench of High Court in writ appeal relying on Ramzan Khan case set aside the order of punishment holding that copy of Inquiry Report was not supplied to the delinquent before passing order of punishment and hence violative of principles of natural justice – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The judgment relied on by the Division Bench, whereby non-furnishing of inquiry report was held to be violative of rules of natural justice, since was given prospective effect, the inquiries conducted prior to date of that judgment (i.e. 20.11.1990) would not be affected by the law laid down in that judgment – The order of punishment in the present case was passed prior to 20.11.1990, it could not have been set aside on the ground of non-furnishing of copy of inquiry report – Punishment of reversion is restored. Removal from service – Propriety of – Disciplinary inquiry – 5 charges levelled against the delinquent – Inquiry Officer found only charge No. 4 as proved while other charges (charge Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5) were not found proved – Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings in respect of charge Nos. 1 and 5 – Thus on the basis of charge Nos. 1,4 and 5 and also on the basis of punishment of reversion in earlier departmental proceedings, inflicted penalty/ punishment of removal from service – Order was confirmed in departmental appeal – Single Judge of High Court dismissed the writ petition – Division Bench of High Court, in writ appeal, heldthat punishment of removal stands vitiated because the reasons for disagreement with the Inquiry Report in respect of charge Nos. 1 and 5 was not supplied to the delinquent and because the previous punishment of reversion was taken into consideration without bringing it to the notice of the delinquent – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: There is no mandatory requirement of communicating the proposed punishment after 42nd Constitutional amendment – Therefore, there cannot be any bar in the constitutional scheme to take into consideration previous punishments – Thus, non-communication of previous punishments in the show cause notice will not vitiate the punishment imposed – Non-communication of reasons for disagreement recorded in respect of charge Nos. 1 and 5 also cannot be faulted with – However, in exercise of power of judicial review, Supreme Court cannot maintain the punishment of removal from service in view of findings recorded on charge No. 4 – It is for the Disciplinary Authority to consider whether punishment of removal on the basis of charge No. 4 alone was sustainable or not – Matter is remitted back to Disciplinary Authority.