A. CBAKRABARTI, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been directed against the orders dated 15-10-1984, 1-7-1919 and 5-8-1989. ( 2 ) THE case as made out in the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Co-operative Supervisor in the year 1962 and was made permanent thereafter. On certain complaints relating to sale of fertilizers a first information report was lodged against the petitioner on 17-4-1983 under Section 409, I P C. The petitioner was suspended immediately thereafter. On 20-21-1983 a charge-sheet was issued by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner stated that he did not file any reply to the charge sheet as he was assured that the departmental enquiry shall not be conducted as the criminal investigation in respect of the same charges was pending Although there was no development in any of the proceedings on 20-5-1985 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 7-6-1985 By an order dated 15-10-1985 passed by the Deputy registrar, Co-operative Societies, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Further, direction was issued to take proceeding under Section 68 of the u. P. Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal and the said appeal was dismissed by the order dated 9-1-1989 by the Appellete Authority. The petitioner made various complaints against the order of dismissal as also the appellate order and challenged the proceedings on various ground including non-supply of the copy of the enquiry report. ( 3 ) THE respondents contested the proceeding by filing two counter affidavits. The first one apart from denying the Allegations made in the writ petition stated that the charge sheet was not replied to by the petitioner. Thereafter a notice was published in daily newspaper dainik Jagran calling upon the petitioner to file bis reply and to put forward his defence and otherwise the matter would be decided exparte. The petitioner did not respond even thereafter. The second counter affidavit dealt with the matters relating to the appellate authority and denied the application dated 21-8-1989 or 31-5-1981. It further stated that only one application letter from the petitioner was received in the head office of Federal Authority at Luckow and that was dated 30-3-90 whereby the petitioner wanted to know the result of the appeal. The second counter affidavit dealt with the matters relating to the appellate authority and denied the application dated 21-8-1989 or 31-5-1981. It further stated that only one application letter from the petitioner was received in the head office of Federal Authority at Luckow and that was dated 30-3-90 whereby the petitioner wanted to know the result of the appeal. ( 4 ) THE petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit denying the allegations made by the respondents. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the respondents Sri Triloki Natb. Parties agreed that affidavits having been exchanged the writ petition may be disposed of finally at this stage. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Enquiry officers report having not been supplied, the impugned order of dismissal purported to be completion of the proceeding is bad and illegal. In support of such contention the petitioner has relied upon the case of State Bank of indian y. D, C Agrawal, reported in 1993 (1) UPLBEC 25, State of Gujarat v. R. G. Teredesai. reported in AIR 1969 SC 1294 : 1969 Lab IC 1547 and u. P. Government v Sabir Husain, reported in AIR 1975 SC 2045 The petitioner contends that following the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the apex Court non-supply of the report of the inquiry Officer amounts to violation of the principle of natural justice. The position has been further discussed by the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the case of union of India v. Mohammad Ramzan Khan, reported in AIR 1991 SC 471 : 1991 Lab IC 808 and Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1074 . The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that two latter cases do not directly apply in the case of the petitioner wherein punishment was imposed by the order dated 15-10-1985 but the principles laid down in those cases also read with the cases referred to earlier clearly show that supply of of the Enquiry Officers report is a requirement of the principles of natural justice. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner states that the report of the district Administrative Committee was also not made available to the petitioner by the Regional Administrative Committee. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner states that the report of the district Administrative Committee was also not made available to the petitioner by the Regional Administrative Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the scope of enquijy under Section 68 as directed by the impugned order will make it clear that until the said enquiry is held the petitioner could not be made responsible and punished before hand. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents denied to contentions of the petitioner. The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioeer never asked for the enquiry report and so there was no question of any prejudice and any irregularities in the matter of supply of the, report. It was contended further that such case of prejudice has neither been stated in the rejoinder affidavit nor was shown in course of the hearing. In this connection, the learned counsel referred to the findings made by the apex court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL v. S Karunakar, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1094. The relevant portion runs as follows :"hence, in all cases where the Enquiry Officers report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the courts and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming to the Court Tribunal, and give the employee an opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudice because of the non-supply of the report. If after hearing the parties, the court Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non-supply of the report would have made no difference findings end the punishment give, the Court Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment. The Court Tribunal should mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished. " ( 9 ) SECONDLY the learned counel for the respondents referred to the document at Annexure-2 to the Counter affidavit affirmed by Dilip Kumar shukla The said document records that the petitioner was heard by the appellate Authority and in course of hearing the petitioner admitted misappropriation of the amounts being Rs. 11,000/-, 40,000/-, 42,000/- and 69,000/- and admitted his guiit relating to shortage of the amounts. 11,000/-, 40,000/-, 42,000/- and 69,000/- and admitted his guiit relating to shortage of the amounts. The petitioner does not appear to have disputed the said document nor he denied the admission made before the appellate authority except that he made a bare submission in para 7 of the of the rejoinder affidavid which was affirmed. ( 10 ) THE next contention of the learoed counsel for the respondents is that in para 17 of the counter-affidavit affirmed by Sri Trilolci Nath Shukla it was stated that the petitioner did not send his reply to the charge-sheet not put forward his defence otherwise in spite of "service of the chatgee-sheet and publication oi the notice in newspaper that the matter will be decided ex parte. Such statement on affidavit by the respondents was not properly dealt with by the petitioner and it. para 18 of the rejoinder affidavit mere dental was made. ( 11 ) THE next contention of the respondents is that upon reference to the order passed by he Deputy Registrar dated i5-10-l985 at Annexure-4 to the writ petition which records the findings relating to the embezzlement by the petitioner to the extent of Rs, 1,63. 985 80. and in the circumstances, the objection raised by the petitioner relating to Section 60 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act is not tenable. ( 12 ) UPON hearing both the sides and considering the materials as aforesaid, 1 do not find any material or any contention by the petitioner justifying further oppornity to be given to the petitioner in view of the fact that the petitioner has admitted the guilt before the appellate authority and the documents and alleganc is relating thereto have not been denied by the petitioner. In the circumstances, I feel that any further opportunity to the petitioner wilt only amount to a technicality, In respect of the report of the district Adminibtrativa Committee, 1 find that the petitioner did not avail of opportunity in spite of receipt or the charge sheet and publication of notice in newspaper. With regard to the other objection of the petitioner 1 find that the petitioner has been found to be responsible for the offences including the embezzlement by the Disciplinary Authority and the same was admitted before the Appellate Authority. With regard to the other objection of the petitioner 1 find that the petitioner has been found to be responsible for the offences including the embezzlement by the Disciplinary Authority and the same was admitted before the Appellate Authority. In the circumstances, the said objection with reference to the proceeding under Section 68 of the U. P. Co-operative societies Act, 1965, is also not maintainable. ( 13 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition fails and is accordigly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. .