IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6337 of 2001 DINESH CHANDRA SINHA son of Late Jagdish Chandra Resident of Village & P.O. Tankuppa, Police Station Tankuppa, District, Gaya ............. Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar 2. Joint Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna 3. Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Department, Patna. 4. Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Sasaram. 5. Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Gaya. 6. Executive Engineer, Minor irrigation division,Gaya. Respondents. 5 16-10-2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. During the pendency of the writ petition the original petitioner, who had superannuated from service, died and has been substituted by his heirs. The original writ petitioner filed this writ petition in the year 2001 to challenge the order of punishment dated 27-2-2001, contained in annexure-10, whereby he was awarded several punishments on the basis of an enquiry report in a properly conducted departmental proceeding in which five charges against the petitioner were found proved. The punishment includes recovery of the amounts found recoverable, stoppage of five increments with accumulative effect, debarring the petitioner from work relating to maintenance of accounts, censure for the concerned year - 2 - and no salary beyond subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. The main charge against the petitioner is that through 19 Establishment bills between March, 1996 to November, 1997 an excess amount of Rs. 2,73,933 was fraudulently withdrawn and defalcated. The other five charges included irregularity in maintenance of accounts because for the year 1997-98 no receipts shown to the audit team in respect of payment of Rs.9,00000/- paid through the cash register in respect of two establishment bills, failure to hand-over charge of cash by the petitioner and absconding from his residence, Dehri, in spite of several letters and reminders for handing over charge given by the Superintending Engineer concerned, in spite of paper publication on 27th September, 1998 did not hand over charge, failure to hand-over charge and key of the cash chest at the time of posting at Aurangabad and voluntarily absenting himself from Head-quarter since 27-12-1997. The main point on behalf of petitioner, urged before this court is that admittedly a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner before awarding - 3 - him punishment. It was also argued that a copy of the enquiry report annexed by the petitioner in the writ petition would show that the enquiry officer found failure on the part of the concerned Superintending Engineer in proper monitoring of accounts work done by the petitioner as incharge cashier. It is also submitted that had the petitioner received enquiry report he might have pleaded for lenient punishment. On behalf of petitioner reliance has been placed upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director ECIL, Hyderabad and Others Vrs. Shri B. Kanunakar ( 1993) 4 SCC 727. That judgment reiterates the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vrs. Mohd Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588 and holds that where the disciplinary authority decides to award punishment on the basis of an enqiry report, copy of the report should be furnished to the delinquent employee. However, that judgment also considers as a separate issue as to what shall be the effect of non-furnishing of enquiry report to the delinquent employee. The law has been clearly held that the effect of non-furnishing of enquiry report on - 4 - punishment and relief to be granted depends upon the extent of prejudice caused due to non-furnishing of the report. In all cases reinstatement is not required to be ordered and the concerned Court/ Tribunal is required to call for a copy of the report to be furnished before argument and thereafter it has to apply its judicial mind before setting aside the punishment on finding that prejudice has been caused. In order to decide the issue whether the prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in this case, the relevant facts were noticed. It was found that petitioner has already annexed a copy of the enquiry report with the writ petition and although serious charge of defalcation of Government money was one of the charges, he did not prefer any appeal before the competent authority so as to get any dispute over facts settled by the authority. The findings given by the Enquiry Officer are mainly on the basis of records as well as report of the Audit Team and it cannot be said that such findings are based on no evidence. On proper appreciation of all the facts and the nature of charges against the petitioner which have been - 5 - Naresh found proved , it is found that the petitioner has not suffered any prejudice and the punishment is not dis-proportionate to the gravity of the charges. In the result this court finds no good ground to interfere with the order of punishment . The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J)