Short Note : 1. Respondent No. 1 was employed as a Driver in the Gwalior Depot. of the petitioner Corporation. On 2-8-1968, he was on duty on Gwalior Jabalpur night bus which leaves Gwalior in the evening. Respondent No. 1, after checking the bus in the normal course of his duty, took the vehicle from Gwalior Depot and then after taking the passengers from Kampu, Gwalior, left for Jabalpur. Near Dabra, about 28 miles away from Gwalior, Respondent No. 1 detained the bus and sent a message to the Gwalior depot that the differential of the bus which he was carrying was giving noise and the lights are not in proper order and the passengers are stranded. On receiving this report, a relief bus was sent immediately along with a mechanic and an electrician. The passengers were transported in the relief bus and they were carried to Jabalpur. The bus which was alleged to be not in working order, was brought back by the mechanic and the electrician, to Gwalior. After the bus was brought back to Gwalior, it was checked again for the alleged defects and it was found to be in proper condition. It was also said that when the bus was carried from Dabra to Gwalior, there was no trouble absolutely. After checking, it was found that the report made by respondent No. 1 regarding the defects was false and because of this false report, the passengers had to wait and the relief bus was required to be sent. Therefore, the Corporation has suffered in money and labour because of the false report. On the basis of this investigation, a charge-sheet was given to respondent No. 1 and his explanation was demanded. In his explanation, respondent No. 1 has denied the allegations and submitted that whatever he has stated was correct. A departmental Enquiry was held against respondent No. 1 and the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 had sent a false message from Dabra and because of this, the Corporation had to incur heavy loss and inconvenience. Finding respondent No. 1 guilty, his services were terminated by the Depot Manager, Gwalior. 2. A departmental Enquiry was held against respondent No. 1 and the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 had sent a false message from Dabra and because of this, the Corporation had to incur heavy loss and inconvenience. Finding respondent No. 1 guilty, his services were terminated by the Depot Manager, Gwalior. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner had to concede that the finding that the bus developed defects and, therefore, respondent No. I had to send a call to Gwalior Depto for relief bus is that of act and both the Courts below have taken a concurrent view. Therefore, it can not be challenged in the present petition. He submitted before us that the Labour Court was wrong in holding that domestic enquiry is illegal. Even if there be any defect in the enquiry, but if the finding can be sustained on the basis of other evidence, then the Labour Court should not have disturbed that finding. 3. The Labour Court has held the enquiry illegal on the following two grounds:- (i) The copy of the report was not supplied to the respondent No. 1, (ii) Enquiry Officer has based his finding thinking that Bhagirath was the witness of respondent No. 1, when in fact, he was the witness of the Corporation. Held : As to the non-supply of copy is concerned, we will have to accept the submission made by the learned counsel before us. It is not alleged by respondent No. 1 in his petition before the Labour Court or has stated in his statement that he has suffered prejudice in his defence because he was not supplied with the copy of the report. Therefore, non-supply of copy will not vitiate the domestic enquiry. 4. But, there is serious defect in the enquiry itself and, therefore, we will have to accept the finding of the Labour Court that the enquiry is illegal and bad in law. In the order dated 20/, 30-3-1969, passed by the Depot Manager in the enquiry, it is mentioned as under:- “The charge against the respondent No. 1 is proved by the evidence of his own witness” (rendered in English by us). and to come to this conclusion, he has considered the evidence of Bhagirath. In the order dated 20/, 30-3-1969, passed by the Depot Manager in the enquiry, it is mentioned as under:- “The charge against the respondent No. 1 is proved by the evidence of his own witness” (rendered in English by us). and to come to this conclusion, he has considered the evidence of Bhagirath. He has mentioned in his order that Bhagirath is a witness appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, the learned counsel for the petitioners had to admit that Bhagirath was a witness produced by the Corporation and not by respondent No. 1. There is no need of much discussion to say that certainly the order is illegal because it is based on evidence produced by the Corporation and not by respondent No. 1. Therefore, we have no doubt in holding that the findings of the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court that the enquiry was illegal is correct. 5. Excepting the statement of Bhagirath, there is no evidence to come to the conclusion that the charge is proved against respondent No. 1. As we have come to the conclusion that the enquiry was bad and the finding arrived at by the Labour Court and by the Industrial Court is correct, which requires no interference, the petition, we will have to hold, is without merit and accordingly, we dismiss it. Petition dismissed.