JUDGMENT Petitioner here was an inquiry officer appointed by MPSRTC and conducted inquiry against one Umraomal Jain who challenged the inquiry and the order before the Labour Court. The Labour Court found the inquiry to be wholly illegal and without following legal and established procedure. An opportunity was given for adducing the evidence. The same was also not availed. Petitioner here, did not appear before the Court for substantiating the charges against Umraomal. As such DE was held against the petitioner and after inquiry punishment of stoppage of two increments has been passed. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is firstly that petitioner was not at the station concerned and was transferred to Jabalpur and, therefore, he could not attend the Court for substantiating the charge against Umraomal; secondly that the appeal filed by respondents was withdrawn and no final decision was taken from Industrial Court and therefore charge of dereliction from duty has wrongly been accepted. In reply to second contention learned counsel for respondents submits that since the legal procedure was not followed, respondents MPSRTC was not in a position to challenge the judgment and it was for this reason that the appeal was withdrawn. Normally an inquiry officer cannot be personally held responsible for errors in appreciation of evidence but if the inquiry officer holds an inquiry without following the procedure with the intention to help the delinquent employee he can definitely be proceeded with departmentally. In this case the respondents have found that the petitioner failed to follow the legal and established procedure for holding an inquiry and thereby has committed dereliction of duty. It was on this ground that the two increments were withheld. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that copy of the finding of inquiry officer has not been given to the petitioner and the punishment has been awarded without affording him an opportunity of putting his case after finding given by the inquiry officer. Learned counsel for respondents is not in a position to controvert this fact. The principle of justice requires that the copy of inquiry report and its findings be given to the person against whom the inquiry is being made. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been prejudicial because of the non-supply of copy of inquiry report and its findings. The principle of justice requires that the copy of inquiry report and its findings be given to the person against whom the inquiry is being made. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been prejudicial because of the non-supply of copy of inquiry report and its findings. In view of above, the punishment awarded cannot be sustained as the same has vitiated to that extent. In the result petition is allowed. The order of punishment is set aside. Respondents are directed to furnish copy of the report of Inquiry Officer and finding thereon to the petitioner within 15 days from today and may pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner. Parties shall bear their own costs.