SUDHIR NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 20. 9. 1984, passed, by the Senior Manager (T. L. X.), dismissing the petitioner from service and the order dismissing the appeal against the aforesaid decision communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 22. 11. 1984. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner was working as permanent Senior Drafts Man in bharat Heavy Electricals (India) Ltd. , Ranipur, Hardwar, district Saharanpur (hereinafter referred to as the project ). The disciplinary proceedings were taken against him on certain-charges. He was served with four charge sheets. In charge sheet dated 1. 9. 1981, it was alleged that the petitioner connived with a co-worker and issued fictitious receipts amounting to rs. 1800/- mentioned in the said charge sheet. The second charge sheet dated 12. 9. 1981 indicated that the petitioner submitted false L. T. C. claim amounting to Rs. 2,865/- in respect of his visit with family to Gulmarg. The third charge sheet dated 26. 10. 1981 was to the effect that the petitioner did not disclose the facts about crime case No. 633 under Section 420 of the Indian penal Code filed and proceeded against him in the Court of Munsif, Hardwar although he was required to do so under the instructions of the Manager. The fourth charge sheet dated 26. 10. 1981 was issued stating that the petitioner drew vehicle advance amount to Rs. 3,000/- in february, 1977 and again Rs. 4,000/- in April, 1981 but he neither submitted relevant documents nor refunded the advance and continued to keep the companys money in an unauthorised way. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was proceeded with the charge sheet dated 12th September, 1981. The disciplinary Authority appointed Sri. S. N. Mukhrji as , Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was given an opportunity by the Inquiry Officer. Sri S. N. Mukerji, the Inquiry Officer submitted report dated 3rd April, 1982 that the prosecution failed to prove that the family members of the delinquent Officer did not travel by taxi No. UTL-5617 during the period of alleged travel from 28. 2. 1980 to 7. 3. 1980. The Disciplinary Authority found that there was missing links. Sri S. N. Mukherji, the Inquiry Officer who had submitted the report was directed to reinquire into the charges. 2. 1980 to 7. 3. 1980. The Disciplinary Authority found that there was missing links. Sri S. N. Mukherji, the Inquiry Officer who had submitted the report was directed to reinquire into the charges. Sri S. N. Mukherji wrote a letter that he had already resigned from the service of the company and it would be appropriate that another Inquiry Officer be appointed. After he submitted the letter, the General Manager appointed Sri S. K. Khazanchi as Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was provided with the details of the missing links and additional facts vids Setter dated 9. 5. 1984, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure- C. A. 3 to the counter affidavit. The inquiry Officer Sri Khazanchi sent 15 notices to the petitioner on different dates but the petitioner remained absent. The Inquiry Officer submitted detailed report dated 7. 8. 1984 stating therein that the petitioner had not undertaken any journey from Hardwar to Gulmarg and vice versa and the L. T. C. claim submitted by him was fake. He was guilty of charges of fraud/dishonesty. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order on 20. 9. 1984 dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the appeal was also dismissed on 9. 10. 1984. These orders are being challenged in the present writ petition. ( 4 ) I have heard Sri H. P. Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned Counsel for the respondents. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner having not been supplied with the copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer on the basis of which he was dismissed from service, the order passed on such report is vitiated under law. He has placed reliance upon the decision union of India v. Mohammed Ramzan Khan, A. I. R. 1991 S. C. 471, wherein it was held that even after the enforcement of 47 the Amendment a delinquent is entitled to obtain a copy of the inquiry report on the basis of which the punishment is imposed on him. The decision was considered in Managing Director. E. C. I. L. , Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors. , AIR 1994 S. C. 1074. The decision was considered in Managing Director. E. C. I. L. , Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors. , AIR 1994 S. C. 1074. It was held that the decision in Mohammed Ramzan Khans case (supra), made the law expressly prospective in operation and the decision rendered by any authority prior to 20th November, 1990 will have to be decided according to law which prevailed prior to the said date and not in accordance with law laid down in Mohammed Ramzan Khans case. The authorities of the Management who proceeded on the basis of decision prior to this date that there was no need to furnish a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer to the delinquent employee, it would not be proper to reopen the disciplinary proceedings which would result in great prejudice to the administration. ( 6 ) FURTHER it is not the case of the petitioner that the first report of S. N. Mukherji was supplied to him and the subsequent report of Sri. Khazanchi was not supplied to him and that caused him prejudice. The petitioner had admittedly submitted the bills on the allegation that the travelled from Hardwar to Gulmarg and vice versa on L. T. C. It was for him to establish that he, in fact, travelled and to produce all the necessary evidence. The evidence which he produced was considered by the Inquiry Officer in detail and found that the version of the petitioner was incorrect. The copy of the reports have been annexed in the writ petition itself by the petitioner. The petitioner has not stated as to from where he has obtained the copy of these reports, if it was not supplied to him at any point of time. In paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner never asked for report of the Inquiry Officer and there was no occasion to supply him a copy of the report. This fact has been disputed in the rejoinder affidavit. The petitioner has not stated that before the appeal was filed he requested for supply of the inquiry report and he was not supplied. ( 7 ) THE petitioner has further to show that he was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the report of the Inquiry Officer. This fact has been disputed in the rejoinder affidavit. The petitioner has not stated that before the appeal was filed he requested for supply of the inquiry report and he was not supplied. ( 7 ) THE petitioner has further to show that he was prejudiced on account of non-supply of the report of the Inquiry Officer. In B. Karunakars case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court emphasised that the Court/tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished. It has further to record a finding that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result of the case that it should set aside the order of punishment. In case the copy of the report was not supplied, the petitioner can be furnished the copy of the Inquiry Report even before the Tribunal or the Court. The Court made the following observation : "hence, in all cases where the Inquiry 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 prejudiced 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 to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment. The Court/tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. " ( 8 ) THE Inquiry Officer had submitted the report that the petitioner was guilty of fraud/dishonesty by submitting fake bills. It was the matter of assessment of the evidence which was produced by the petitioner and the Inquiry Report is part of this writ petition. There is no averment in the writ petition that any of the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer is against the evidence on the record. ( 9 ) IN Secretary to Government and Ors. It was the matter of assessment of the evidence which was produced by the petitioner and the Inquiry Report is part of this writ petition. There is no averment in the writ petition that any of the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer is against the evidence on the record. ( 9 ) IN Secretary to Government and Ors. v. A. C. J. Brittoo, A. I. R. 1977 S. C. 1395, wherein the delinquent officer was dismissed from service, it was urged by him that he was not supplied with certain documents by the Inquiry Officer. It was held that mere non-supply of the documents, unless any prejudice is shown, will not vitiate the order. It was further held that the non-furnishing of the copy of the inquiry report will also not nullify the order which was passed prior to the decision in Union of India v. Mohammad Ramzan Khan (supra ). Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case the impugned order of dismissal and the order passed by the Appellate Authority are not vitiated on account of non-furnishing of the inquiry report. ( 10 ) THE next submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment is harsh and is not proportionate to the charges lavelled against him. The charge against the petitioner was that he was guilty of fraud and dishonesty. This has been established from the inquiry report has accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. The question as to what punishment should be imposed on such charge is a matter to be considered by the Disciplinary Authority. ( 11 ) IN Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Ors. , A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 2386 the Apex Court held that the question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the authority concerned. Unless it is shown that the sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. In the present case on the finding that the petitioner was guilty of dishonesty and fraud, he does not deserve any sympathy from the court. The charge may be one or quantum of money involved may be less but the fact remains that the petitioner was found guilty of dishonesty and fraud. In the present case on the finding that the petitioner was guilty of dishonesty and fraud, he does not deserve any sympathy from the court. The charge may be one or quantum of money involved may be less but the fact remains that the petitioner was found guilty of dishonesty and fraud. The imposition of the penalty being within the jurisdiction of the authority concerned, the decision taken against the petitioner on facts of the case cannot be termed as manifestly illegal as to warrant interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 12 ) THE petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit during the course of the arguments indicating that some other persons were charge sheeted by the authority for similar charges as against the petitioner but they were given the lesser punishment. The copies of those orders have been annexed as Annexures-1, 2 and 3 to the supplementary affidavit. The order of punishment is dated 3rd March 1984 in the case of S. N. Sharma. In that case he had admitted that he had not gone on L. T. C. and submitted the explanation and further submitted an apology. In the present case the petitioner had never admitted the fact that he had not gone to Gulmarg, as alleged by him. On the other hand, he submitted the bill which was not found to be correct. The other two orders annexed with the supplementary affidavit against Sri Baljora is dated 27th February, 1989 and against one Sri Ahuja is dated 8. 12. 1988. These orders have been passed after the impugned order was passed against the petitioner. Moreover, this supplementary affidavit has been filed during the course of arguments to which the respondents did not get any opportunity. ( 13 ) THE last submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed by the Project Manager but he has been dismissed from service by the Senior Manager who had no right to dismiss the petitioner from service. The position has been explained in para 42 of the counter affidavit. It has been stated that the Senior Manager being the head of the department had power to dismiss the workman under Clause 21 (d) as well as Clause 23 of the standing Orders of the Company. ( 14 ) IN view of the discussions made above, there is no. It has been stated that the Senior Manager being the head of the department had power to dismiss the workman under Clause 21 (d) as well as Clause 23 of the standing Orders of the Company. ( 14 ) IN view of the discussions made above, there is no. merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.