IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15277 of 2001 6 1.10.2008 Manmohan Choudhary son of Late Mathura Choudhary, resident of Mohalla Smir Takya, PS Civil Line, District Gaya, at present posted as Clerk, Civil Court, Gaya VERSUS 1.The State of Bihar 2.The District & Sessions Judge, Gaya 3.The Registrar, Civil Court, Gaya ------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 18.11.2000 passed in a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner by the District and Sessions Judge, Gaya which is contained in Annexure-3. By that order the District Judge perused the report of the enquiry officer and agreeing with the same he found the proceedee, the petitioner guilty. Petitioner was inflicted with a punishment whereby his position in service was reduced to the lowest rank in his cadre and besides that his one increment was stopped permanently. It appears from the materials on record that the allegation that petitioner demanded a certificate of presence on duty for a date on which he was on leave, was made by the Presiding Officer of the concerned court where the petitioner was working as a Bench Clerk. In connection with that incident according to report of the Presiding Officer, Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Sherghati at 2 Gaya the petitioner tore page of court diary dated 1.12.1998 and pasted a new page of diary and on enquiry he handed over the torn page and left the court without permission merely after submitting his application for casual leave. The enquiry against the petitioner was conducted after due notice in which two witnesses were examined on behalf of the department and two defence witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner. The conclusions of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse and hence, require no interference. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he was not handed over a copy of the enquiry report before awarding the punishment. That fact is not in dispute. However, law on the subject is well settled that the delinquent has to satisfy the court that non-supply of the enquiry report has led to any prejudice. The petitioner never made any demand and there is no material or circumstance in this case to hold that petitioner was in any way prejudiced on account of non-supply of the enquiry report. Hence, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk