H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) THE assistant registrar of a prestigious university is questioning the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the syndicate of the university dated 19-9-1992, consequential communication of the order of penalty dated 20/25-11-1992 and the order made by the appellate authority dated 5-1-1994. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts are: respondent-kuvempu university by a notification dated 22-7-1989 has appointed petitioner as assistant registrar of the university. Pursuant to the said notification, petitioner has reported for duty as assistant registrar. By an official memorandum dated 2-8-1989, the university has entrusted to the petitioner apart from other functions, the purchase of furniture and stationery articles and maintenance of stock registers, etc. In that, it was made known that he will submit the files to the registrar of the university for approval. The respondentuniversity issued a show-cause notice dated 10-10-1990 containing charges of misconduct said to have been committed by the petitioner, while working as assistant registrar of the university. The show-cause notice came to be replied by the petitioner. Appointing authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered, issued an order dated 18-10-1990, keeping the petitioner under suspension pending departmental enquiry proceedings. The order so made was placed before the syndicate of the university in its meeting held on 20-10-1990. The syndicate by its resolution was pleased to approve the action of the vice-chancellor of the university in keeping the petitioner under suspension and was further pleased to observe that vice-chancellor will frame the charge memo and place it before the syndicate for approval. ( 3 ) PETITIONER was served with a charge memo dated 3-11-1990 containing charges of misconduct as assistant registrar of the university by the registrar of the university. In the charge memo, it was alleged among others, that the petitioner as the assistant registrar of the university has violated the purchase rules and norms. The charge memo also contained the statement of imputations. But it was not accompanied by any document. However, the charge memo at the very beginning required the delinquent officer to furnish his explanations within 10 days of the receipt of the charge memo as the enquiry was proposed to be held against him. The charge memo also contained the statement of imputations. But it was not accompanied by any document. However, the charge memo at the very beginning required the delinquent officer to furnish his explanations within 10 days of the receipt of the charge memo as the enquiry was proposed to be held against him. By his request letter dated 9-11-1990, petitioner requested the disciplinary authority to furnish him the copies of documents on which the university intends to rely on in support of the allegations in the articles of charge memo to file his written statement of defence. He was informed by letter dated 8-11-1990, that he may inspect the documents in the chambers of the registrar of the university and he was also directed to file his explanation on or before 19-11-1990. petitioner by yet another letter dated 15-11-1990 requested the registrar of the university to permit him to have the assistance of a legal practitioner not only to defend him in the proposed domestic enquiry proceedings but also to inspect the records and documents. The request so made was rejected by the university authorities by their communication dated 16-11-1990 but informed the petitioner that he may personally inspect the documents and make notes if he wishes to. ( 4 ) THE petitioner filed his written statement of defence in detail denying the allegations made in the charge memo and further requested the respondents to drop the proposed enquiry proceedings and also revoke the order of suspension dated 18-10-1990. The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanation offered, in its meeting held on 24-11-1990 proceeded to appoint an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges of misconduct. Pursuant to the resolution of the syndicate dated 16-3-1991, the registrar of the university by his order dated 18-3-1991 has ordered for joint enquiry against the petitioner and one Sri b. Sudhakar, who was working as second division clerk in the university in exercise of his powers under statute 13 (1) of the Mysore university employees (classification, control and appeal) statutes, 1983. ( 5 ) THE university authorities had examined four witnesses including registrar of the university and had marked 15 documents before the enquiry officer in support of the charges in the charge memo. The delinquent had examined himself and two other witnesses in support of his defence. ( 5 ) THE university authorities had examined four witnesses including registrar of the university and had marked 15 documents before the enquiry officer in support of the charges in the charge memo. The delinquent had examined himself and two other witnesses in support of his defence. After completion of the enquiry proceedings, petitioner had submitted a written brief dated 30-6-1992 to the enquiry officer. Thereafter, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 5-8-1992 to the syndicate of the university together with the records of enquiry proceedings and other documents. The enquiry officer has found that the petitioner is guilty of the charges alleged in the charge memo. After considering the report of the enquiry officer and record of the proceedings, the syndicate of the university in its meeting held on 19-9-1992 was pleased to resolve to impose a penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and treat the period of suspension as such in accordance with the Provisions of Karnataka civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules, 1957. The resolution of the syndicate imposing penalty is communicated to the delinquent official by the registrar of the university in his order No. Ku/est-1/92/5770, dated 20/25-11-1992. Thereafter, the appeal to the chancellor of the university followed, which came to be dismissed as per annexure-w, dated 5-1-1994, concurring with the findings and the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. It is these orders, which have brought the petitioner before this court being aggrieved by the same. ( 6 ) THOUGH numerous grounds have been raised in support of the relief in the petition, what was really pressed into service by the learned counsel Sri S. V. Narasimhan is the following contentions. They are: (I) non-supply of documents on which university intended to support the allegations in the charge memo to the delinquent official in spite of repeated requests, vitiates the enquiry proceedings since the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. (II) the enquiry proceedings are vitiated, since the charge memo is issued by the registrar of the university and not by the syndicate of the university, which is the appointing authority in the petitioner's case. (III) non-supply of the report of the enquiry officer to the delinquent official would be violative of principles of natural Justice rendering the final order invalid. (III) non-supply of the report of the enquiry officer to the delinquent official would be violative of principles of natural Justice rendering the final order invalid. (IV) the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is contrary to Rule 8 of the Karnataka civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules, 1957, therefore, the order is bad, illegal and invalid. ( 7 ) SRI prakash, learned counsel for the respondent-university sought to justify the impugned orders. ( 8 ) RE. Contention (i): Sri S. V. Narasimhan, learned counsel for delinquent official contends that non-furnishing of documents on which reliance was placed by the disciplinary authority to the delinquent official though requested for it repeatedly by the delinquent official for effective reply to the allegations contained in the charge memo and for effectively participating in the enquiry proceedings vitiate the enquiry proceedings. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relies upon the observation of the apex court in the case of state of uttar pradesh v shatrughan lal and another. ( 9 ) THIS contention of the learned counsel need. not detain me for long since the law is now well settled on this issue. If the copies of the relevant documents is not furnished to the delinquent official and if the disciplinary authority does not permit him to inspect the documents and records on which reliance is placed by the disciplinary authority for framing charges and on which they intend to support the allegations in the charge memo, the enquiry conducted will not be in accordance with rules of natural Justice since the delinquent official would be denied of reasonable opportunity of defending himself against the charges. . ( 10 ) IN the present case, on a request made for. supply of documents and records on which reliance was placed for framing the charges, the registrar of the university specifically informs the delinquent official that he can inspect the documents and if necessary to make notes of the documents and records in his chamber at any time of his choice but only denies the request of the delinquent official to inspect the documents with the assistance of a legal practitioner. ( 11 ) IT is settled law that if the employer seeks to rely on any documents in proof of the allegations made in the memo, the principles of natural Justice requires that such copies of those documents need to be supplied to the delinquent official. If such documents cannot be supplied to the delinquent for reasons like voluminous in nature, an opportunity requires to be given to the delinquent at least to make inspection of the documents and if necessary to make notes of the same. If such opportunity is not given by the employer, it would violate the rules of natural justice. In the present case, on the request made by the delinquent official for supply of documents on which management intends to rely on in support of the charges, the disciplinary authority specifically informs that the delinquent official can visit his office at any time of his choice and not only inspect the documents and records and make notes or extracts, if he so desires. This in my opinion, would satisfy the requirement of principles of natural justice. In a departmental enquiry proceedings, it is expected of the employer to give fair and reasonable opportunity to the person accused of acts of misconduct so that he will be in a position to effectively reply to the allegations made in the charge memo and also effectively participate in the enquiry proceedings. This requirement is satisfied by the employer by permitting. the delinquent not only to inspect and study the documents and if necessary and desires to take notes or extracts. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was denial of reasonable opportunity to effectively defend himself in the enquiry proceedings and therefore, the non-supply of the list of documents in the charge memo has not caused any prejudice to the delinquent employee. Accordingly, the first legal issue canvassed by the learned counsel for petitioner has no merit and accordingly, it is rejected and further, the observations made by the apex court in shatrughan lal's case, supra, would not assist the petitioner in any manner whatsoever, since the fact situation in the said decision was totally different. ( 12 ) RE. Contention (ii): a show-cause notice had been issued by the vice-chancellor of the university alleging acts of misconduct by the petitioner while working as assistant registrar of the university. The cause was shown by the petitioner. ( 12 ) RE. Contention (ii): a show-cause notice had been issued by the vice-chancellor of the university alleging acts of misconduct by the petitioner while working as assistant registrar of the university. The cause was shown by the petitioner. This was not accepted by the vicechancellor. in order to hold a departmental enquiry proceedings against the petitioner for acts of omissions and commissions as assistant registrar of the university, petitioner was kept under suspension pending departmental enquiry. These steps of the vice-chancellor is-approved by the syndicate of the university, which is the disciplinary authority insofar as the petitioner is concerned. While approving the steps so taken, they direct for framing of appropriate charges against the petitioner and place it before them for approval. It is the case of the petitioner's learned counsel Sri S. V. Narasimhan, that the syndicate of the university thereafter met only on 24-11-1990 and the registrar of the university without obtaining the sanction of the syndicate of the university could not have served the charge memo on the petitioner dated 3-11-1990. The contention raised by the learned counsel has two parts. one is that the registrar of the university is incompetent to frame the charges since he is not the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority. Secondly, since the initiation of the proceedings is by an incompetent officer, the enquiry proceedings are vitiated, rendering the final orders made invalid. This legal contention canvassed by the learned counsel in my opinion, requires to be noticed only to be rejected for multiple reasons. First and foremost, the registrar who is the superior authority of the petitioner, while issuing the charge memo specifically states that the charge memo is. Issued 'by order'. That obviously means, with the previous direction issued by the competent authority namely, syndicate of the university. Petitioner to disprove this assertion has not placed any material before this court. First and foremost, the registrar who is the superior authority of the petitioner, while issuing the charge memo specifically states that the charge memo is. Issued 'by order'. That obviously means, with the previous direction issued by the competent authority namely, syndicate of the university. Petitioner to disprove this assertion has not placed any material before this court. Even otherwise, framing of the charge memo is approved by the syndicate in its meeting held on 24-11-1990, when they passed appropriate resolution in appointing the enquiry officer and the presenting officer to inquire into the allegations contained in the charge memo and lastly, in view of the observations made by a division bench of this court in the case of s. nagaiah v management of Indian aluminium company limited and the law declared by the apex court in the case of steel authority of India and another v Dr. R. k. diwakar and others, it is not necessary that the disciplinary authority alone should initiate the enquiry proceedings and it is sufficient if the superior and controlling authority initiates the proceedings. In the present case, the registrar of the university has issued the charge memo by an Order, obviously with the permission and approval of the university and secondly, the registrar of the university is superior and controlling authority and therefore, it cannot be said that the initiation of the proceedings is by an incompetent person and therefore, the proceedings cannot be said to be vitiated in any manner whatsoever. Accordingly, the second contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected. ( 13 ) RE. Contention (iii): the learned counsel for petitioner contends that the proceedings are vitiated since the disciplinary authority had not furnished the report of the enquiry officer dated 5-8-1992 before framing the impugned order. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on the observations made by the Constitution bench of the supreme court in the case of managing director, electronic corporation of India limited, hyderabad v b. Karunakar. This specific contention had been raised by the delinquent in the appeal filed by him before the chancellor of the university. This contention is negatived by the appellate authority and in that, the appellate authority observes as under:"the disciplinary authority has imposed a minor penalty and hence it is not necessary to give an opportunity to the appellant before imposing the penalty". This contention is negatived by the appellate authority and in that, the appellate authority observes as under:"the disciplinary authority has imposed a minor penalty and hence it is not necessary to give an opportunity to the appellant before imposing the penalty". ( 14 ) IN my opinion, in view of the law lalld down by the apex court in the case of b. Karunakar, supra, the issue whether the report of the enquiry officer is required to be furnished to the delinquent employee even while imposing a punishment other than dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is no more debatable. The apex court in the aforesaid decision was pleased to observe:"thus the article makes it obligatory to hold an enquiry before the employee is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank. The article however cannot be construed to mean that it prevents or prohibits the inquiry when punishment other than that of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is awarded. The procedure to be followed in awarding other punishments is lalld down in the service rules governing the employee. What is further, article 311 (2) applies only to members of the civil services of the union or an all India service or a civil service of a state or to holder of civil posts under the union or a state. In the matter of all punishments both the government servants and others are governed by their service rules. Whenever, therefore, the service rules contemplate an enquiry before a punishment is awarded, and when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee will have the right to receive the inquiry officer's report notwithstanding the nature of punishment". (emphasis supplied) ( 15 ) IN view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in b. karunakar's case, supra, the thinking of the appellate authority that since "the disciplinary authority has imposed a minor penalty and hence it is not necessary to give an opportunity to the delinquent official before imposing the penalty" cannot be accepted. Therefore, the order made by the appellate authority is contrary to the law declared by the apex court and the same requires to be set aside. Therefore, the order made by the appellate authority is contrary to the law declared by the apex court and the same requires to be set aside. ( 16 ) NEXT question that requires to be considered is whether any prejudice is caused to the petitioner by reason of non-furnishing of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer by the disciplinary authority before accepting the findings recorded. The Supreme Court in b. karunakar's, case, supra, his pointed out the procedure that requires to be followed by the courts/tribunal in such cases. The court has observed:"the next question to be answered is what is the effect on the order of punishment when the report of the inquiry officer is not furnished to the employee and what relief should be granted to him in such cases. The answer to this question has to be relative to the punishment awarded. When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, 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. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural Justice have been evolved to uphold the Rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. 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. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of Justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an "unnatural expansion of natural justice" which in itself is antithetical to justice. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of Justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an "unnatural expansion of natural justice" which in itself is antithetical to justice. hence, in all cases where the inquiry officer's report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the courts and tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming to the court/tribunal, and give the employee an opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of the non-supply of the report. 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 regretted being done at present. The courts should avoid resorting to shortcuts. 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, (and not any internal appellate or revisional authority), 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. Where after following the above procedure, the court/tribunal sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back-wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ultimately ordered, should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back-wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ultimately ordered, should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome. If the employee succeeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be reinstated, the authority should be at liberty to decide according to law, how it will treat the period from the date of dismissal till the reinstatement and to what benefits, if any and the extent of the benefits, he will be entitled. the reinstatement made as a result of the setting aside of the inquiry for failure to furnish the report, should be treated as a reinstatement for the purpose of holding the fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more, where such fresh inquiry is held. That will also be the correct position in law". ( 17 ) IN the instant case, the report of the enquiry officer is nearly of 100 pages. The enquiry officer in his report categorically observes that the petitioner has not caused any financial loss to the university. If the report of the enquiry officer had been furnished to him, he would have been in a better position to inform the disciplinary authority that he has not committed any irregularity while placing orders for purchase of furniture and stationery for the purpose of university and he could have also informed them that even if there is any technical breach that would not warrant for imposition of penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner by reason of non-furnishing of a report of the enquiring authority before accepting the same and imposing punishment. as pointed out by apex court in b. Karunakar's case, supra, the requirement as to furnishing of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer is an integral part of the opportunity that has to be given to the delinquent official for imposing the punishment on the charges that had been proved. as pointed out by apex court in b. Karunakar's case, supra, the requirement as to furnishing of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer is an integral part of the opportunity that has to be given to the delinquent official for imposing the punishment on the charges that had been proved. Petitioner in the grounds urged in support of the prayer in the writ petition specifically asserts that no opportunity had been given to him to prove his innocence with reference to the findings recorded in respect of each charge by the enquiry officer and before the disciplinary authority arrived at its conclusion. This assertion of the petitioner is not even denied by the respondents in their statement of objections. They do not even contend before this court that the non-supply of the copy of the enquiry report by the enquiry officer has not caused any prejudice to the delinquent official. Therefore, at this stage, it may not be possible to say that the decision of the syndicate would not have been different from the one arrived, if the copy of the report of the enquiry officer had been furnished to the delinquent official before accepting the findings of the enquiry officer. In my view, this is sufficient to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority since I am of the view that prejudice is caused to the petitioner in not affording an opportunity of showing cause against the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. ( 18 ) THE last contention canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner Sri S. V. Narasimhan is that the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is contrary to Rule 8 of Karnataka civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules, 1957. While saying so, the learned counsel submits that the Rule only provides for imposition of penalty of stoppage of increments and it does not provide for stoppage of increment with cumulative effect and therefore, the penalty imposed is illegal and contrary to the rules. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the observations made by Calcutta high court in the case of food corporation of India v state of West Bengal and others. ( 19 ) IN my opinion, at this stage, i need not consider this legal issue canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner since i intend to remand the matter on the third issue canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner. ( 19 ) IN my opinion, at this stage, i need not consider this legal issue canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner since i intend to remand the matter on the third issue canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner. the disciplinary authority while deciding the matter afresh will also keep in his mind this issue canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner before this court and advert to it if necessary in the final orders that may be passed by it. ( 20 ) FOR the reasons stated above, petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. The impugned orders made by the disciplinary authority dated 20/25-11-1992 and the appellate authority dated 5-1-1994 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to redo the matter if it so desires, in accordance with law and keeping in view the observations made by this court in the course of this order from the stage the defects are noticed by this court. For this purpose, the respondent authority need not place the petitioner under suspension. All the other contentions canvassed by both the parties are left open. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .