A. L. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) APPEAL admitted. We have heard Mrs. Pahwa for M/s Thakker Associates for the appellant and Mr. K. M. Patel learned advocate for the respondents. ( 2 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in SCA No. 4343 of 1992 on December 15,1995. ( 3 ) PRESENT appellant was the petitioner in the said SCA and he had preferred that SCA seeking the following reliefs:" (A) that Your Lordship be pleased to issue an order and or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus and or certiorari or any other appropriate, writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order of dismissal dated 28. 6. 1990 dismissing the petitioner from the services of the Bank. (B) that Your Lordship be pleased to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner on his original post of Branch Manager with full back wages and continuity of service as if the impugned dismissal order marked Annexure-A has never been issued. (C) any other relief to which the Hon. Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice together with costs. " ( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the SCA by passing the impugned order which has given rise to the present appeal. F a c t s ( 5 ) THE petitioner was working with Union Bank of India as Branch Manager. Several charges including that of corruption were levelled against him and departmental proceedings were also initiated. The Inquiry Officer, ultimately found that the charges levelled against him were established and the learned Judge decided to dismiss the petition. ( 6 ) MRS. Pahwa learned advocate appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer was not supplied to the petitioner and that aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. She has placed reliance upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hydrabad vs. B. Karunakar reported in AIR 1994 SC 1074 and she urged that because of this decision, the proceedings against the appellant stood vitiated which is not considered by the learned Single Judge. The appeal may therefore, be allowed. ( 7 ) MR. The appeal may therefore, be allowed. ( 7 ) MR. PATEL learned advocate for the respondents on the other hand submitted that no prejudice is caused to the appellant by non supply of the copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the factual aspect also while deciding the petition. Mr. Patel submitted that the appellant was involved in corruption charges which aspect has been admitted by him in writing and not even retracted later on. This written admission of corruption by the appellant has also been proved during the course of inquiry through witnesses and therefore, non supply of the copy of the report of the inquiry officer would not affect the interest of the petitioner in any manner. He has placed reliance upon a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Additional District Magistrate (City) Agra vs Prabhakar Chaturvedi and anor reported in AIR 1996 SC 2359 . ( 8 ) THE argument that non supply of copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer would vitiate the entire proceedings assumes hardly any importance before us considering the facts of the present case. It was contended that in Gujarat even prior to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan , it was required that the copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer has to be supplied to the delinquent and therefore, by virtue of the decision in the case of of Managing Director, ECIL, Hydrabad vs B. Karunakar (Supra) same practice would continue even if it was prior to 20. 9. 90. But it becomes amply clear from the decision in the case of Managing Director ECIL that the court should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished, if it is not likely to have any impact on final conclusion. We may quote the following observations made in para 7 clause (v) of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court:". . . 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. . . 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. . . . " ( 9 ) IN the case of Additional District Magistrate, Agra (Supra), it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the court has to take into consideration the facts of each case and if the non supply of the copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer would not have resulted into any prejudice to the delinquent, non supply of the document or copy of the report should not make any difference. Their Lordships have observed in para 4 of the said judgment as under:". . SO far as the grievance about the non-examination of witnesses and non-supply of documents is concerned, in our view, the High Court has erred in ignoring the salient features of the case, namely, that respondent No. 1 himself by his statement dated 14th December 1984 admitted to have received an amount of Rs. 21,000/-and odd and which could not be deposited by him, along with his associate on account of their carelessness and fault. . . . "" In fact on account of the clear admission contained in writing given by the respondent No. 1 on 14th December 1984 the charge against him stood proved on admission and the only question that remained to be considered was about the nature of punishment to be imposed on him. . "now, coming to the facts of the present case, the delinquent has in writing admitted that he was involved in corruption and had accepted and amount of Rs. 12,000. 00 from various borrowers for sanctioning of loan at the rate of Rs. 600. 00 per borrower. Therefore, it appears that he is involved in corruption. This written confession has been duly proved during the course of inquiry. The same, at no point of time was retracted. The written confession appears to have been given voluntarily and under no coercion, threat or duress. 600. 00 per borrower. Therefore, it appears that he is involved in corruption. This written confession has been duly proved during the course of inquiry. The same, at no point of time was retracted. The written confession appears to have been given voluntarily and under no coercion, threat or duress. ( 10 ) IN the circumstances, we do not express any specific opinion about the question whether the supply of copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer was necessary in the instant case or not, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the SCA. We do not find any illegality or incorrectness in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that no error was committed by the concerned authorities in reaching to the conclusion of guilt against the petitioner and that the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority can in any manner said to be vitiated or disproportionate to the charges established against the petitioner. In view of the fact that the appellant has admitted his involovement in corruption in writing, supply of copy of report of Inquiry Officer would hardly make any difference in final decision in the matter. Under the circumstances, we find no merits in the appeal and we dismiss the same. No costs. .