HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.1576 OF 2002 DATED: 06.08.2009 BETWEEN: K.Kanaka Kumar .. Appellant And Regional Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Ernakulam, Kerala State .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.1576 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per SK,J) By order dated 05.08.2002, a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed W.P.No.1843 of 1992, holding that the petitioner, being a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ought to have raised a dispute under the provisions of the said Act instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, this appeal. The issue before the learned Single Judge was with regard to the disciplinary action taken against the appellant/writ petitioner by the State Bank of Travancore. The grievance canvassed in this appeal is that the respondent bank failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the appellant was not furnished a copy of the Enquiry Report, basing on which the respondent bank issued the final order bearing No.DGM/EKM/DPS/140 dated 30.11.1991, discharging the appellant from service. Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in D.S.P. RAO V. A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HYDERABAD[1], in support of his contention that the Management was required to furnish a copy of the Enquiry Report before a decision was taken to impose a particular punishment upon the delinquent employee. Reference was made by the Division Bench to the Constitution Bench judgment in MANAGING DIRECTOR, ECIL, HYDERABAD ETC. v B.KARUNAKAR[2] wherein it was held that the delinquent is entitled to a copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report. Per contra, Ms.Uma, learned counsel for the respondent bank, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in UNION BANK OF INDIA v VISHWA MOHAN[3] in support of her contention that mere non-supply of the Enquiry Report would not be sufficient by itself to vitiate the disciplinary proceedings and that the employee has to demonstrate as to how prejudice was caused to him due to such non-supply of the Enquiry Authority's report/findings. A perusal of the final order dated 30.11.1991 passed by the respondent bank demonstrates that the disciplinary authority strongly relied upon the findings recorded in the Enquiry Report and copious reference was made to the proceedings of the Enquiry to support the punishment inflicted upon the appellant as against each of the four charges. As the said Enquiry Report was not furnished to the appellant, he was clearly placed at a dis-advantage in responding to the findings recorded therein. Thus, irreparable prejudice was caused to him by the non-furnishing of the Enquiry Report. We are therefore of the opinion that the final order dated 30.11.1991, which was impugned in the writ petition, cannot stand and the same is accordingly set aside. The respondent bank is at liberty to furnish a copy of the Enquiry Report to the appellant, call for his explanation thereupon and then take a final decision in the matter. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J Dated:06.08.2009 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.1576 OF 2002 DATED: 06.08.2009 [1] 1996(1) ALT 922 [2] AIR 1994 SC 1074 [3] 1998(4) SCC310