ORDER

1. In Kailash Chander Asthana v. State of U.P., AIR1988 SC 1338, JT1988 (2)SC 291, (1988)11 LLJ 219 SC , 1988 (1)SCALE884 , (1988)3 SCC600 it has been observed by a bench of three Judges that the question of furnishing a copy of the report of enquiry in disciplinary proceedings held after Forty-second Amendment does not arise. But in Union of India v. Mohd. Rarnzan Khan, AIR1991 SC 471 , [1991 (61)FLR736], JTl990 (4)SC 456, (1991)1 LLJ29 SC, 1990 (2)SCALE1094 , (1991)1 SCC588, [1990 ]Supp3 SCR248, 1991 (1)SLJ196 (SC), (1991)1 UPLBEC456 another bench of three Judges had held to the contrary. In the later case it was observed (at p. 597, para 17) that "we have not been shown any decision ofa coordinate or a larger bench of this Court taking this ... ". In view of this seeming conflict as to the entitlement of a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent officer we consider that it is necessary to refer this matter to a larger bench.

2. The special leave is granted only on this question. The papers may be placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench.

3. Since the matter is likely to take a long time for disposal of the matter, any stay order would prejudi