Order This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2.2.1994 contained in annexure-1, whereby and whereunder the Joint Commissioner, Administration of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (hereinafter referred to as 'Sangathan'). on appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the disciplinary authority imposing penalty of withholding one increment of pay for the period of three years has reduced it to withholding of one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect from the date of next increment, which would follow the date of original order dated 14.5.97. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that 'the petitioner was chargesheeted on 28.3.1988 on misconduct of entering into the chamber of the Principal of the Sangathan and using derogatory language against the officers of the Sangathan. An enquiry was conducted with respect to the said charges and a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority, on perusal of the enquiry report found the petitioner guilty of the charges. However, to meet the ends of justice the penalty of withholding of one increment for the period of three years was imposed, vide memo dated 14.5.92. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed appeal before the appellate authority, who on consideration of the records of the case, has finally disposed of the appeal by the impugned order. 3. Mr. Kanth, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders of punishment cannot be sustained in the eye of law in view of the fact that copy of the enquiry report has not been served upon the petitioner before passing the orders of punishment. 4. Mrs. Sharma, learned Advocate for the respondents in reply submitted that from bare perusal of the orders contained in annexure 2 it would appear that the copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner. However, this objection was never taken by the petitioner before the appellate authority, nor he stated in his memorandum of appeal before the appellate authority as to how he was prejudiced, because of non-supply of the said report. Mrs. Sharma further submitted that even before this court the petitioner has failed to point out the prejudice, if any, caused to him on account of the alleged non-supply of the report. Mrs. Sharma further submitted that even before this court the petitioner has failed to point out the prejudice, if any, caused to him on account of the alleged non-supply of the report. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot succeed in this writ petition on the above mentioned ground of non-supply of the enquiry report. 5. I find substance in the submissions of Mrs. Sharma. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out either from the memorandum of appeal contained in annexure 12 or even otherwise that the question regarding non-supply of the enquiry report was ever raised before the appellate authority and/or that the same has resulted in any prejudice to the petitioner. The Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director E. C. I. L. vs. S.Karnnakar, reported in A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1974 held as follows- "......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. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out that the furnishing of the report before passing of the initial order of punishment would have made a difference to the result in the case. Under such circumstances. I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the alleged non-supply of the enquiry report to the petitioner would vitiate the impugned orders of punishment. 7. Sri Kanth also ventured to submit that the charges were vague and the civil proceedings were conducted in violation of natural justice. I am unable to accept the said submission of the learned Counsel. The question regarding vagueness of charges a was never raised before the appellate authority and an appeal (annexure 12) in detail to meet the charges was filed before the appellate authority. With respect to the alleged violation of principle of natural justice nothing specific has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, except the bald statement made in paragraph 47 of the writ petition, which, in my opinion is not sufficient to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. With respect to the alleged violation of principle of natural justice nothing specific has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, except the bald statement made in paragraph 47 of the writ petition, which, in my opinion is not sufficient to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The charges against the petitioner were of misconduct of intruding into the office of Deputy Commissioner (Pers) Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and using derogatory language against the officers of the Sangathan, which were found to have been proved. The appellate authority after consideration of the records of the case and the matter in the appeal including the grounds adduced, has come to the conclusion that the grounds adduced by the petitioner in the appeal do not negate the facts on the records. However, keeping in view the extracting circumstances, in which the incident of mis-behaviour occurred, the appellate authority has reduced the punishment to the extent of toning down the penalty imposed upon him by withholding of one increment for the period of one year without cumulative effect from the date of next increment to be followed from the date of original order dated 14.5.92, which, in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case does not warrant any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, specially to maintain the discipline among such employees. 8. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed.