Honble SINGH, J.–This is an appeal by the Rajasthan State Road TransportCorporation (in short, `the Corporation) against the order of the learned Single Judge, allowing the respondents writ petition on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. (2). The Chairman of the Corporation passed an order against the respondent awarding the punishment of reduction in rank. He has been demoted from the post of the Divisional Mechanical Engineer to the post of the Assistant Mechanical Engineer. (3). Mr. U.N. Bhatt, the Divisional Manager, Udaipur, was transferred. He handed-over his charge to the respondent on 12th October 1983 as he was the next Senior most available officer at Udaipur. He officiated only for 12 days and, there-after, another officer, Mr. T.A. Zaidi, took the charge from him as Divisional Manager. (4). During his officiating period, he was only to took after routine work of the Divisional Manager in addition to his own duties as Divisional Mechanical Engineer. Out of the total 12 days of his officiating on that post, five days were holidays and,in all, he got 7 working days. During this period of seven days, he called for the enquiry files of five Conductors, who were under suspension on grave charges of allowing ticketless passengers to travel on several occasions. The enquiries were pending against them since only about 2 months and they had not filed their replies to the charge-sheets. They were filed in hurry soon after he took over officiatingpost on 12.10.83. They were filed on 17.10.83, 18.10.83, 20.10.83 and 21.10.83. (5) He decided the cases of five conductors, i.e., Ramnarain, Rishabh Lal, Ramlal Yadav, Ramchandra Trivedi and Banshilal against whom charges of grave misconduct were pending. He neither appointed any Enquiry Officer, nor presenting officer, nor held any enquiry against them, though the entire record has beenseen by him. From the record, it was known to him that these were the persons who have been punished for committing same type of misconducts on several earlier occasions. Without following the procedure of law, he decided all the cases in hot haste by imposing minor penalties. He did not even follow the Circular dated 14th of November, 1980, which made it obligatory on the party of the DisciplinaryAuthority to have looked into the previous record of the delinquent employees, to have appointed the Enquiry Officer and presenting officer for conducting the enquiry. He did not even follow the Circular dated 14th of November, 1980, which made it obligatory on the party of the DisciplinaryAuthority to have looked into the previous record of the delinquent employees, to have appointed the Enquiry Officer and presenting officer for conducting the enquiry. Even Order 35 of the Standing Orders was not followed. Ramnarain (Conductor) (6). He was charge-sheeted on 26th September, 1983 and was required to filehis reply within seven days. However, he filed his reply on 20th October, 1983, during the short span of time when the respondent was looking after the work of the Divisional Manager, Udaipur. His case was decided on 20th October, 1983, i.e., only a day before a permanent incument Mr. Zaidi was to join his duties and would have relieved the respondent. (7). Ramnarain was punished on several occasions when he was a Conductor at Banswara Depot. He was punished for the misconducts committed by him on 31st of August, 1979, 14th of September, 1979, 28th of September, 1979, 25th of September, 1981, 27th of April, 1981, 5th of October, 1981, 26th of May, 1982 and 15th of September, 1983. These misconducts mainly related of carrying passengerswithout tickets. In this case, respondent passed the following order – jktLFkku jkT; iFk ifjogu fuxe] mn;iqj Øekad % iz-mn;@laLFkk@f}rh;@83 fnukad dk;kZy; vknsk Jh jke ukjk;.k iq= Jh fkojke ifjpkyd ckalokM+k vkxkj tc os fnukad 15-9-83 dks vgenkckn&ckalokM+k ekxZ ij M~;wVh vatke ns jgs Fks rks buds fo:) 3 ;k=h fcuk fVdV dk ekeyk izdkk esa vkus ij bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 1298 fnukad 26-9-83 }kjk fuyfEcr fd;k tkdj vkjksi i=k tkjh fd;k x;k ¼1309 fnukad 26-9-83½ ifjpkyd us mDr vkjksi i=k dk tokc izLrqr fd;kA tokc dk ,oa lacaf/kr iw.kZ nLrkost dk esjs }kjk voyksdu fd;k x;k ,oa ijh{k.k djus ds ipkr eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWapk gwWa fd ifjpkyd fuxe fu;eksa&funsZkksa dh vogsyuk djus dk nks"kh gSA ftls fuxe ds LFkk;h vknskksa dh /kkjk 36¼2@5½ ds rgr fuEukuqlkj nf.Mr djrk gwWa& ¼1½ ,d vLFkkbZ okf"kZd osru o`f) rqjUr izHkko ls jksdh tkrh gSA ¼2½ Hkfo"; esa lrdZrk ls dk;Z djus ds fy, psrkouh tkjh djrk gwWa rFkk rqjUr izHkko ls cgky djrk gwWaA ,oa fuyEcu dky dk ks"k osru fuxe fgr esa tek djrk gwWaA ¼,l-ih- eaxy½ 22-10-83 Rishabh Lal (Conductor) (8). He was earlier punished for the misconducts which he committed on 17th of August, 1980, 9th of October, 1980, 12th of November 1980, 28th of November, 1981, 22nd of September, 1982 and 30th of July, 1983 for carrying passengers in the bus without tickets and, in his case, he passed the following order :– ``Discussed and seen the entire file alongwith reply of conductor. Reply is quite satisfactory. No Detailed enquiry is needed for the same. Looking to the conductors past history and scarcity of conductors following orders be issued. 1. He may be issued S.R. warning for not repeating such in future. 2. Remaining suspension salary be forfeited in Corporation head. 3. One A.G.I be stopped temporarily. He may be sent to D.P.R. Orders be issued. Sd/- (S.P. Mangal) Divisional Manager, 19.10.83. Banshilal (Conductor) (9). He was also earlier punished for the misconducts which he committed on 2nd April, 1979, 30 th of August, 1979, 19th of October, 1979, 3rd of August, 1980,10th of September, 1980, 12th of July, 1980, 30th of September, 1980, 29th of November, 1981, 16th of January, 1983 and 12th of August, 1983. The misconducts related to carrying the passengers without tickets and, in his case, the following order was passed :– ``He has submitted the reply of previous charge sheet also. In which he was placed under suspension. Later on, he was reinstated pending enquiry even before the submission of reply. That means the charge was not so serious and it was realised by concerned Div. Manager in personal hearings. The Second Charge is also not comparable with that of previous one. Looking to all these circumstances, it will not be in the interest of Organisation to conduct detail enquiry. It will be unnecessary loss to the Organisation as detailed enquiry also put heavy cost to the Organisation. Under the circumstances, looking to the past history he has violated the rules laid down by Corporation, following orders be issued:- 1. S.R. warning be issued for not repeating the things in future. 2. Remaining suspension salary be forfeited in Corpn. head. Orders be issued. Sd/- (S.P. Mangal) 21.10.83. Rameshwar Lal S/o Shanker Lal (Conductor) (10). Under the circumstances, looking to the past history he has violated the rules laid down by Corporation, following orders be issued:- 1. S.R. warning be issued for not repeating the things in future. 2. Remaining suspension salary be forfeited in Corpn. head. Orders be issued. Sd/- (S.P. Mangal) 21.10.83. Rameshwar Lal S/o Shanker Lal (Conductor) (10). He was punished on several occasions for the misconduct of carrying passengers without tickets and the dates are 13th of September, 1977, 22nd of Oct- October, 1977, 4th of May, 1978, 12th of May, 1979, 21st of December, 1980, 9th of October, 1981 and 7th of August, 1983. In his case, the following order was passed:- ``Discussed and seen the entire file. The Neemach route is chapter 4 route. Over this route, the conductor is mentally bothered for income. Even for drivers the relaxation has been given for Diesel average because strictly punctuality is to be maintained. It is in the interest of Organisation to boost up the moral of crews over such route so that Corporation can compete the service facilities provide by private operators. Looking to the past history, particularly of last two years, there is no any corruption case against the said conductors. Under the circumstances considering the available facts and figures, no detailed enqui- ry is required to be conducted. Following orders be issued only after recalling him : 1. Remaining suspension salary be forfeited in Corpn. head. 2. S.R. warning be issued for not repeating same in future. 3. Two (2) A.G.I. be stopped temporarily. Orders be issued. Sd/- (S.P. Mangal) 19.10.83. Rameshwar S/o Hanuman Prasad (Conductor). (11). This Conductor was also punished for the similar misconduct of carryingpassengers without tickets on 5th of November, 1982, 4th of February, 1983, 18th of June, 1983, 30th of June, 1983 and 26th of September, 1983 and, in his case, this was the order passed by him :– ``Seen and discussed relevant facts. The charges are not so serious. It will not be in the interest of Organisation to conduct the enquiry for the same. Reply is quite satisfactory. But still he has violated the Rules prescribed by the Corporation. Looking to all concerned factors following orders be issued : 1. Remaining suspension salary be forfeited in Corpn. head. 2. S.R. warning be issued. 3. He may be reinstated at DPR Depot. Sd/- (S.P. Mangal) 21.10.83. Reply is quite satisfactory. But still he has violated the Rules prescribed by the Corporation. Looking to all concerned factors following orders be issued : 1. Remaining suspension salary be forfeited in Corpn. head. 2. S.R. warning be issued. 3. He may be reinstated at DPR Depot. Sd/- (S.P. Mangal) 21.10.83. The action of the respondent in passing the order in the cases of those fiveconductors against the Circular and Standing Orders itself amounted to misconduct. So, the following charges were levelled against him :– 1. Deciding disciplinary cases in favour of five conductors (names in the charge-sheet) without carrying out any department enquiry. 2. Decisions on departmental enquiries pertaining to corruption charges against conductors were taken in a defective manner and carelessly. 3. Transferred conductors against norms resulting in financial loss to the Corporation. The details of the various charges were given alongwith the charge-sheet.These charges related to the period when he officiated as Divisional Manager in-Charge of Udaipur Division from 12th of October, 1983 to 23rd of October, 1983. He submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry. He participated in the enquiry and cross-examined the witnesses produced on behalf of the Department. He availed full opportunity to present his case. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 25th of September, 1991. He never made any complaint at any stage of violation of principle of natural justice. For the first time, this point was raised in the writ petition. (12). Charge No. 1 has been found to be established against the respondent and it was found that his conduct was against the provisions of the Standing Orders and the Notifications issued by the Department. Several cases of corruption were pending against these Conductors. Ignoring all these facts, during his officiating period of seven working days, he decided these cases by awarding only minor puni-shments. He should not have taken the matter so lightly. He was holding only the officiating charge of Divisional Manager and that also only for few days. He was expected to discharge only urgent and routine functions. Deciding serious Disciplinary cases prematurely, without following the procedure definitely amounted to misconduct. The learned Single Judge, relying upon the decision of the SupremeCourt reported in State of Mysore vs. K. Manchay Gowda (1), held that the appellant was punished without affording reasonable opportunity to defend himself. He was expected to discharge only urgent and routine functions. Deciding serious Disciplinary cases prematurely, without following the procedure definitely amounted to misconduct. The learned Single Judge, relying upon the decision of the SupremeCourt reported in State of Mysore vs. K. Manchay Gowda (1), held that the appellant was punished without affording reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Ignoring the fact that these five conductors were previously punished in serious corruption cases, the respondent decided their cases. The entire record was before him. He never raised any objection regarding denial of officiating. The way in which he con-ducted himself without following the procedure was sufficient to establish the misconduct against him and nothing wrong has been done in imputing motive against him in deciding five Disciplinary cases of the conductors in a hot haste. (13). Though, the learned Single Judge has allowed it on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, but has discussed no instance of deny-ing the opportunity to him and what prejudice has been caused by not following the procedure by the Department. Even in the case of Manchay Gowda (supra), the Court observed that if the proposed punishment was mainly based upon the previous record of the Government servant and that is not disclosed in the notice, it will be presumed that the main reason of proposing the punishment has beenwith-held from him and that amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice. This case is absolutely of no relevance to the facts of the present case. The punishment has not been awarded on the basis of his previous record. The order has been passed only on the basis of his conduct after giving full opportunity. (14). The Supreme Court in the latest case reported in State Bank of Patialavs. S.K. Sharma (2), after considering its earlier judgments, has clarified the position that an order of punishment should not be set aside automatically, the Court has to enquire whether the alleged violation of principle of natural justice is a substantive in nature or it is a procedural in character. It is actually the prejudice that is said to have been caused to the employee, is to be examined by the Court. In casethere is a violation of substantive provision, of course, prejudice will not be applicable. It is actually the prejudice that is said to have been caused to the employee, is to be examined by the Court. In casethere is a violation of substantive provision, of course, prejudice will not be applicable. But in case of violation of procedural provisions, which are meant only for affording reasonable opportunity to the employee, the test of prejudice has to be applied. In the instant case, there is no violation of either of substantial or procedural character. No case of prejudice has even been pleaded. No case ofdenial of principle of natural justice has been made out. (15). Thus, in view of the law laid down in the case of State Bank of Patiala (supra), we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge suffers from error and is liable to be set aside. (16). The appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judgeis hereby set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the respondent is also dismissed, but we make no order as to costs.