Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : E. Natarajan, the petitioner in this writ petition, is seeking for the issue of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited, the respondent herein, dismissing the petitioner from service in proceedings No. Admn. A3/31775/91-8 dated 10-2-1992 and the order passed by the Board of Directors confirming the same on 28-5-1992 on appeal by the petitioner and to quash the same and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service as Officer giving status and salary on par with the petitioner's immediate junior. The relevant facts that are required for the disposal of this writ petition are summarised as follows :- "The petitioner was employed as a Typist in the Cuddalore Branch Office of the respondent Corporation. On receipt of a complaint to the effect that the petitioner received bribes, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated. After enquiry, he was removed from service. Ultimately, the Labour Court set aside the order of termination and ordered for reinstatement. The respondent, aggrieved by the order, filed writ petitions and the same were dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner was allowed to join duty on 5-11-1990. After working for some days, he proceeded on medical leave from 21-11-1990 to 28-2-1991. Thereafter, he did not rejoin duty nor applied for leave. On 5-7-1991, the respondent called for an explanation from the petitioner for his unauthorised absence. On 16-7-1991, the petitioner sent a letter refusing to join duty in the degraded post of Assistant-cum-Typist. Therefore, charges were framed against the petitioner, vide proceedings dated 13-8-1991, for having wilfully absented himself without any authorisation and for having wilfully disobeyed the lawful instruction given to him to work in the Dharmapuri Office as Assistant-cum-Typist.On receipt of Charge Memo, the petitioner sent an explanation reiterating that he should not be asked to work as Typist, since his immediate junior has been promoted to the cadre of Assistant. As his explanation was not satisfactory, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry and to submit his report. Then the petitioner was requested through several letters to appear for enquiry, posting the matter on various dates. But, the petitioner did not choose to appear. Therefore, finally, on 29-11-1991, ex parte enquiry was conducted. As his explanation was not satisfactory, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry and to submit his report. Then the petitioner was requested through several letters to appear for enquiry, posting the matter on various dates. But, the petitioner did not choose to appear. Therefore, finally, on 29-11-1991, ex parte enquiry was conducted. On perusal of the records and explanation already furnished by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved and sent the report to the Management to take necessary action on 18-12-1991. On receipt of this report, the respondent perused the records and passed the impugned order on 10-2-1992, dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Directors, the Appellate Authority, which in turn dismissed the same by the order dated 28-5-1992. In the meantime, as per the orders of the Labour Court, the petitioner was paid backwages in two instalments vide orders dated 29-5-1987 and 28-2-1991. In regard to the promotion of the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation constituted a Committee and the said Committee, in its meeting, held in February 1990 and May, 1991 went into the question of promotion of Assistants and did not find the petitioner fit for promotion. Aggrieved over the rejection of the promotion, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 1192 of 1992. This Court after notice by an order dated 15-6-1999 dismissed the said petition holding that the decision taken by the Committee on having examined the merits of the petitioner finding that he was not a fit person for promotion does not suffer from any infirmity or error.During the pendency of the above writ petition, aggrieved over the order of dismissal of service dated 10-2-1992 and the order on appeal dated 28-5-1992, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the said orders and for reinstatement." The respondent has filed a counter narrating the circumstances, justifying the orders impugned. Mr. Selvaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, though raised several grounds in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, would confine himself to the ground mentioned in para 8 of the affidavit. He would submit that the impugned orders would suffer from grave infirmity on the ground that admittedly, the copy of the Enquiry Report was not furnished to the petitioner before the order of dismissal was passed. He would submit that the impugned orders would suffer from grave infirmity on the ground that admittedly, the copy of the Enquiry Report was not furnished to the petitioner before the order of dismissal was passed. It is stated in para 8 of the affidavit that the copy of the enquiry report was enclosed along with the order of dismissal, which was sent to the petitioner. On the basis of this averment, he would submit that the impugned orders have to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted back to the Authorities for furnishing the copy of Enquiry Report with reference to the proposed punishment and then to pass a final order, on the strength of the decision in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in). Arguing contra, it is submitted by Mr. Jayesh B. Dolia, learned counsel for the respondent, that though it has been held in the said decision that the supply of a copy of the inquiry report, in the matter of proposed punishment to be inflicted would be within the rules of natural justice, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the non-furnishing of the Enquiry Report to the petitioner, in the matter of proposed punishment, would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, inasmuch as he never participated in the enquiry, inspite of the several opportunities given and in fact, he wrote a letter refusing to join duty unless he is given promotion and as such, the impugned orders are perfectly valid. To substantiate the said plea, he would cite the following decisions :- " : (1994 Lab IC 762) (Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar), (State Bank of Patiala v. S. K. Sharma) and 1998 3 Lab LN 900 (SC) (Nagar Palika v. U.P. Public Services Tribunal)." In the light of the above submissions, let us now advert to the relevant observation made in the decisions of the Supreme Court cited above. In (1991 Lab IC 308) (cited supra), it is held as follows :- "We, therefore, come to the conclusion that supply of a copy of the inquiry report along with recommendations, if any, in the matter of proposed punishment to be inflicted would be within the rules of natural justice and the delinquent would, therefore, be entitled to the supply of a copy thereof. The Forty-Second Amendment has not brought about any change in this position." On going through the entire judgment, it is clear that this decision will have prospective application and that no punishment already imposed shall be open to challenge on this ground. This judgment was rendered on 20-11-1990. The punishment imposed in the present case was on 10-2-1992 by the respondent. Therefore, it cannot be debated that Mohd. Ramzan Khan's case cited supra would certainly apply to the present case. However, the question would arise as to whether it could be said that merely because the copy of the Enquiry Report was not furnished to the delinquent officer, the punishment is to be set aside and the matter shall be remitted back to the respondent ? In order to decide this question, it is relevant to refer to some other observations made in the judgments of the Supreme Court, which were rendered later. In : (1994 Lab IC 762) (cited supra), it is held as follow :- "... in some cases the non-furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee with back-wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual ........ ...... ....... ...... Whether, in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits............................................... 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. The Courts should avoid resorting to short-cuts. 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. The Courts should avoid resorting to short-cuts. Since it is the Courts/Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the question and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the order of punishment, there would be neither a breach of the principles of natural justice nor a denial of the reasonable opportunity. It is only if the Court/Tribunal finds that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case that it should set aside the order of punishment." In while referring the Karunakar's case, the Supreme Court would observe as follows :- "24. In Managing Director, E.C.I.L. v. B. Karunakar, (1994 Lab IC 762), a Constitution Bench did take the view that before an employee is punished in a disciplinary enquiry, a copy of the enquiry report should be furnished to him (i.e. wherever an enquiry officer is appointed and he submits a report to the Disciplinary Authority). It was held that not furnishing the report amounts to denial of natural justice. At the same time, it was held that just because it is shown that a copy of the enquiry officer's report is not furnished, the punishment ought not be set aside as a matter of course." The Supreme Court in 1998 3 Lab LN 900 while referring the Karunakar's case (1994 Lab IC 762) (SC), would observe as follows :- "3. ...................... The Tribunal has also observed that no copy of the enquiry report was sent along with the show-cause notice and hence there was no proper enquiry. These observations of the Tribunal have failed to take into account the fact that despite repeated reminders spreading over a number of years, the second respondent failed to give any reply to the charge-sheet which was served upon him. It also failed to take into account the fact that although, the second respondent was asked to inspect the record, he did not inspect the record. It was because, of this failure on the part of the second respondent to reply to the charge sheet or to appear before the enquiry officer that the charges were held proved by the enquiry officer on the basis of the material which was available before him. It was because, of this failure on the part of the second respondent to reply to the charge sheet or to appear before the enquiry officer that the charges were held proved by the enquiry officer on the basis of the material which was available before him. This cannot be considered as a negation of the principles of natural justice. The fact that the copy of the enquiry report was not given to the second respondent will not vitiate the proceedings, in view of the decision of this Court in Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. v. B. Karunakar 1994 2 Lab LN 9 : (1904 Lab IC 762)." From the perusal of the above decisions, it emerges that even though the supply of the copy of the Enquiry Report to the delinquent before the punishment is imposed would be within the rules of natural justice, it cannot be held invariably that non-furnishing of Enquiry Report would always vitiate the proceedings. It has to be seen as to whether grave prejudice has been caused to the deliquent on account of the failure to supply the enquiry report. This would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Unless it is shown that the non-furnishing of the Enquiry Report has resulted in the prejudice to the delinquent and the furnishing of the Enquiry Report would give rise to different consequences, then the Court may not interfere with the order of the Authorities.For deciding the above factor, this Court has to necessarily go into the facts and circumstances of this case and question of prejudice to the delinquent. The petitioner who was earlier dismissed from the service of the Corporation was reinstated in service as Assistant-cum-Typist as per the award of the Labour Court. He joined duty as Assistant-cum-Typist in Dharmapuri Branch Office on 5-11-1990. After having worked for five days i.e. upto 9-11-1990, he applied for casual leave from 12-11-1990 to 16-11-1990. Subsequently, he attended the office on 19-11-1990 and 20-11-1990 and again applied for leave on medical grounds with effect from 21-11-1990 to 28-11-1990 and again extended the leave for three months from 29-11-1990. Thus, he was sanctioned the medical leave for a period of 100 days from 21-11-1990 to 28-11-1991. He had to join duty on 1-3-1991. But, he neither asked for extension of leave nor joined duty. Thus, he was sanctioned the medical leave for a period of 100 days from 21-11-1990 to 28-11-1991. He had to join duty on 1-3-1991. But, he neither asked for extension of leave nor joined duty. Thereafter, after four months, on 5-7-1991, the Branch Manager, Dharmapuri sent a letter to the delinquent, calling for an explanation for his unauthorised absence. The petitioner sent a reply dated 16-7-1991 that he would not join the degraded post of Assistant-cum-Typist. He continued to stay away from duty without submitting any leave application and without obtaining prior permission from the authority. Since the petitioner's conduct revealed that he had no intention to rejoin the duty, the charge-memo dated 13-8-1991 was issued, framing two charges. On 31-8-1991 the petitioner sent an explanation to the charge memo that he would be able to join duty only if he is given proper posting as Officer. Since his explanation was not satisfactory, the Enquiry Officer was appointed on 19-9-1991. Then through the letter dated 14-11-1991 by the Enquiry Officer, the delinquent was requested to attend the enquiry on 23-10-1991. Despite the receipt of the letter, the petitioner did not turn up. Then, again on 1-11-1991, another letter was sent to the petitioner asking him to appear for enquiry on 13-11-1991. He did not attend on that date also. Another opportunity was given to the petitioner through letter dated 20-11-1991 asking him to appear for enquiring on 29-11-1991. On this date also, he did not appear. So ex parte enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer. After perusal of the available records and explanation sent by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer prepared the Enquiry Report stating that charges were proved. Thereafter, the Enquiry Report was sent to the Management with a recommendation to take necessary action.On receipt of the said Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order dated 10-2-1992 dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Boar of Directors and the same was rejected on 28-5-1992 confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 10-2-1992. The chronological events mentioned above would clearly reveal that the intention of the petitioner is not to join duty back and on the contrary he took a specific stand and conveyed to the Management that he would not join duty unless he is given promotion. The chronological events mentioned above would clearly reveal that the intention of the petitioner is not to join duty back and on the contrary he took a specific stand and conveyed to the Management that he would not join duty unless he is given promotion. It is relevant to note, in this context, that against the decision of the Committee, holding that the petitioner is not fit to be promoted, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 1192 of 1992. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed on 15-6-1999. So, these things would clearly show the conduct of the petitioner that he decided not to join the duty and continued to stay away from the office, inspite of the specific written instruction given by the Office to join the duty. Under these circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority, in the light of the Enquiry Officer's report, took a decision and passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service. Though it is now argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the denial of the Enquiry Report in the matter of proposed punishment would vitiate the proceedings, the said ground had not been specifically raised in the writ petition. Though it is stated in para. 8 of the affidavit that the Enquiry Report was not furnished to the petitioner before passing the order of dismissal and the same was sent to him only along with the order of dismissal, he has not mentioned therein about the prejudice having been caused to the petitioner. Moreover, even in the appeal filed before the Board of Directors, that point was not raised. Even during the course of arguments before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued that because of the non-furnishing of the report, grave prejudice had been caused to the petitioner.The list of events stated above would clearly show that from the beginning, the petitioner's consistent stand is that he would not join the duty unless he is posted as an Officer. Under those circumstances, even if the Enquiry Report had been furnished to the petitioner, it could not be said that there might have been some difference in his attitude. Under those circumstances, even if the Enquiry Report had been furnished to the petitioner, it could not be said that there might have been some difference in his attitude. As already indicated, unless the grave prejudice is established due to the non furnishing of the Enquiry Report, it is not proper for this Court to set aside the order of punishment imposed in this case, as, in my view, it may not have made any difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him, in view of the past conduct of the petitioner. It is ruled, as already indicated, that this Court shall apply its judicial mind for setting aside the order of punishment by giving proper reasonings. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any reason to set aside the order of punishment and remit back the matter for the purpose of giving Enquiry Report to the petitioner before imposing the punishment. When this Court takes a considered view that even after the furnishing of the Enquiry Report, if no different consequence follows, it would be a perversion of justice to set aside the order of punishment and remit back the matter to the Authority for imposing proper punishment, after supply of the Enquiry Report. In view of the above reasonings, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.