JUDGMENT 1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing of the enquiry report dated 8.8.1990 (Annexure-3) and subsequent orders contained in Annexures 36, 37 and 39, by which the petitioner's services have been terminated and appeal etc. have been rejected. 2. The factual gamut of the case, reveals that petitioner was working as a Store Munshi in Mahi Bajaj Sagar Project at Banswara and on 19.9.1994, twenty- four Injector Assemblies were found missing from the Store, of which the petitioner was the Incharge. Petitioner lodged a report to the competent authority and on the basis of which an F.I.R. was lodged. However, after investigation, it appears that the respondents authorities came to the conclusion that the petitioner was responsible and was involved in the theft of twenty-four injectors and accordingly the concerned authority issued a Memorandum of Charges, contained in Annexure 7 to this petition, on 24.9.1986. Petitioner submitted its reply on 9.10.1986 (Annexure 8). The Disciplinary Authority was not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner and the decision was taken to hold a regular enquiry against him. After completing the inquiry, the enquiry report was submitted on 8.8.1990 (Annexure 32), by which the charges were found proved against the petitioner. The competent authority issued a show cause notice on 7.12.1990 to the petitioner and petitioner submitted his reply on 25.10.1990 (Annexure 35). After considering the enquiry report and the representation of the petitioner, the Competent Authority passed the order of punishment, i.e. removal from service, vide order dated 29.5.1991 contained in Annexure 36 to the petition. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner preferred the appeal and the Appellate Authority rejected the same vide order dated 17.5.1984 (Annexure 39). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 3. Mr. Basti Chand Bhansali has raised the preliminary issue that petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedy available to him. As against the order of the appellate authority, a review lies under the Rules and he urged that the petition is not maintainable. No doubt, a party is under an obligation to exhaust the statutory remedies, particularly in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192 ; A.V. Venketraman v. R.S. Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1506 and H.B. Gandhi v. Gopi Nath, 1992 Suppl(2) SCC 312. No doubt, a party is under an obligation to exhaust the statutory remedies, particularly in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192 ; A.V. Venketraman v. R.S. Wadhwani, AIR 1961 SC 1506 and H.B. Gandhi v. Gopi Nath, 1992 Suppl(2) SCC 312. But as this case is pending before this Court for several years relegating the petitioner to statutory remedy is not desirable at such a belated stage. 4. Mr. Samdaria has submitted that the orders have been passed for mala fide reasons and the purpose to pass the impugned order was to save the guilty person as, in fact, Shri G.R. Leelani, Junior Engineer, was responsible for it. This argument cannot be taken into consideration for the reason that the petitioner has not impleaded Mr. G.R. Leelani or the competent authority, by name, as the respondent (vide Dr. J.N. Banaralikar v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi, AIR 1996 SC 326 : 1995(4) SCT 665 (SC). ; All India State Bank Officers Federation v. Union of India, 1996(8) JT SC 550 : 1997(1) SCT 91 (SC) ; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Suppl(1) SCC 222 : 1991(2) SCT 397 (SC); and I.K. Mishra v. Union of India, 1997(6) SCC 228 : 1997 Lab IC 2866) . 5. The next submission made by Mr. Samdaria is that in spite of repeated representations, the petitioner had neither been served with the copies of the report of the preliminary enquiry and other documents nor was he given a fair opportunity of hearing to defend himself and in view of the same, the disciplinary enquiry vitiates. This issue in no more res integra. Samdaria is that in spite of repeated representations, the petitioner had neither been served with the copies of the report of the preliminary enquiry and other documents nor was he given a fair opportunity of hearing to defend himself and in view of the same, the disciplinary enquiry vitiates. This issue in no more res integra. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Chintamani Sadashiv Waishampayan, AIR 1961 SC 1623 , the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court placed reliance on its earlier judgment in Union of India v. T.R. Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882 , and Khem Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 300 and held that in domestic inquiry, the principle of natural justice requires that a party should be given a fair opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence, on which he wants to rely and the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence and he should have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and no material should be relied against him without offering an opportunity of explanation regarding the said document. 6. Similarly, another Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.R. Bhatt v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1344 held that the Enquiry Officer is supposed to afford to the public servant an opportunity to remain present and to make his defence and according him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. However, if such a delinquent employee does not participate in the enquiry or adopts delaying tactics, it would not mean that reasonable opportunity had not been accorded to him. 7. In State of U.P. v. Mohammed Sharif, AIR 1982 SC 937 : 1982 Lab IC 1234 , the Apex Court has observed as under (Para 3) : "Secondly, it was not disputed before us that a preliminary enquiry had preceded the disciplinary enquiry and during the preliminary enquiry, statements of witnesses were recorded but the copies of these statements were not furnished to him at the time of the disciplinary enquiry. Even the request of the plaintiff to inspect the file pertaining to preliminary enquiry was also rejected. Even the request of the plaintiff to inspect the file pertaining to preliminary enquiry was also rejected. In the face of these facts, which are not disputed, it seems to us that the plaintiff was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself at the disciplinary enquiry; it would be gainsaid that in the absence of necessary particulars and statement of witnesses he was prejudiced in the matter of his defence." 8. However, in Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 2118 : 1986 Lab IC 1939, the Apex Court considered its earlier judgments and observed as under (Paras 9 and 10):- "When a Government servant is facing a disciplinary proceeding, he is entitled to be offered a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him in an effective manner and no one facing a departmental enquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of such copies, how can the concerned employee prepare his defence, cross-examine the witnesses and point out the inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are incredible.........Whether or not refusal to supply copies of the documents or statement has resulted in prejudice to the employee facing the departmental enquiry, depends upon the facts of each case." 9. Similarly, in the State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram, AIR 1974 SC 2335 : 1974 Lab IC 1442, the Apex Court has observed as under (paras 7 and 8):- "The State contended that the respondent was not entitled to get copies of the statements. The reasoning of the State was that the respondent was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and during the cross-examination, the respondent would have the opportunity of confronting the witnesses with the statement. It is contended that the synopsis was adequate to acquaint the respondent with the gist of the evidence .........The Government servant should be given an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence. He can do so when he is told what charges against him are. He can do so by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him. The object of supplying of the statement is that the Government servant will be able refer to the previous statement of the witnesses proposed to be examined against the Government servant. He can do so when he is told what charges against him are. He can do so by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him. The object of supplying of the statement is that the Government servant will be able refer to the previous statement of the witnesses proposed to be examined against the Government servant. Unless the statements are given to the Government servant, he will not be able to have an effective and useful cross-examination. It is unjust and unfair to deny the Government servant the copies of the statement of the witnesses examined during the investigation and produced at the enquiry in support of the charges levelled against the Government servant. A synopsis does not satisfy the requirement of giving a Government servant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken." 10. Thus, it is settled proposition of law that if the delinquent employee is denied reasonable opportunity of defending himself, the disciplinary proceedings and the consequential order of punishment becomes null and void on that account. 11. In view of the above, if the record of the instant case is examined, it is evident from the record that admittedly the papers of the report of preliminary enquiry as well as the statement made by the witnesses during the course of preliminary enquiry were not supplied to the present petitioner though he made representation for supplying the same. However, the impugned order of punishment is to be tested on the touch-stone of doctrine of prejudice. (Vide Managing Director, ECIL Ltd. v. B. Karunakar, 1993(4) SCC 727 : 1994 Lab IC 762 : 1994(1) SCT 319 (SC) ; State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, 1996(3) SCC 364 : AIR 1996 SC 1669 : 1996(2) SCT 568 (SC) , Major G.S. Sodhi v. Union of India, 1991(2) SCC 382 : AIR 1991 SC 1617 : 1991(2) SCT 537 (SC) ; S.K. Singh v. Central Bank of India, 1996(6) SCC 415 ; and Monika Jain v. State of Rajasthan, 1998(1) Raj LW 71). 12. Mr. Samdaria could not point out as what was the document relating to the preliminary enquiry which had been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the punishment and how the cause of the petitioner has been prejudiced. Merely making the allegation/averments/contentions is not sufficient. 12. Mr. Samdaria could not point out as what was the document relating to the preliminary enquiry which had been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority while imposing the punishment and how the cause of the petitioner has been prejudiced. Merely making the allegation/averments/contentions is not sufficient. The petitioner is under the solemn duty to plead and prove the averments by furnishing sufficient explanation or adducing evidence in support of his averments, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181 : 1988(2) R.R.R. 530 . The record rather reveals that petitioner was given fair opportunity to defend himself as is evident from the various letters contained on record. Thus, it cannot be held that non-supply of the documents of preliminary enquiry has caused prejudice to the petitioner as none of the said documents had been relied by the concerned Authority while imposing punishment. 13. Mr. Samdaria has further urged that neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority has passed the speaking/reasoned order. It is evident from the impugned order dated 29.5.91 that the competent authority has considered the enquiry report and the representation made by the petitioner against it, wherein the finding of fact has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer that petitioner was very much involved in committing the theft of twenty-four injectors and it caused the loss to the tune of Rs. 30,646/- and the conduct of the petitioner had not been such as to entitle him to be retained in service. It has further been held that the matter was reported to the competent authority by the petitioner himself just to misguide them from the reality. The competent authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was very much involved in the theft of the said injectors and he had been adopting the delaying tactics throughout and never co-operated with the disciplinary proceedings. Thus, it cannot be said that the competent authority had not passed the reasoned order. The Appellate Authority had given even opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 2.5.94, as is evident from the appellate order dated 17.5.94 and the Appellate Authority has, also, passed a speaking and reasoned order holding the petitioner guilty of theft. Thus, it cannot be said that the competent authority had not passed the reasoned order. The Appellate Authority had given even opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 2.5.94, as is evident from the appellate order dated 17.5.94 and the Appellate Authority has, also, passed a speaking and reasoned order holding the petitioner guilty of theft. Thus, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Competent Authority and the Appellate Authorities are not speaking and reasoned orders or not based on evidence etc. 14. No other point has been urged before me. 15. I find no force in the petition; it is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.Petition dismissed. *******