Judgment M.Y.EQBAL, J. 1. In the instant Writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate Writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated November 7, 1995 issued by respondent No. 2, Manager, Amlabad Colliery, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Bokaro, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from the service with immediate effect. 2. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. 3. Petitioners case is that he is Branch Secretary of the workmen union namely Indian National Mines Overman Mining Sirdar and short firer Association in Amlabad Colliery. It appears that on March 3, 1990 on the basis of report of the Deputy Finance Manager of Amlabad Project Area, a First Information Report was registered with the police being Chandankiyari P.S. Case No. 19/90 under Sections 447/341/323, I.P.C. The said F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of complaint received (from Sri C.S. Banerjee, Finance Officer, Amlabad Colliery. The allegation inter alia is that on March 1, 1990 at about 4.30 p.m. the petitioner alleged to have suddenly entered in his office, loudly abused him in filthy language, caught his shirt collar and dragged him out from the office and assaulted him. However, he could escape from such assault. On the basis of said report, charge-sheet was served against the petitioner asking him to submit written explanation in respect of the alleged charges. Finding his explanation unsatisfactory an inquiry officer was appointed to inquire into the charges against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer after recording evidence submitted his inquiry report holding that the Management has been able to establish misconduct against the petitioner. On the basis of the inquiry report, petitioner has been dismissed from service. 4. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from service as being illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and mala fide. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is vitiated on account of the fact that the alleged charges levelled against the petitioner are concocted and manufactured in order to victimise the petitioner for his union activities being Branch Secretary of the Union. Learned counsel further submitted that the initiation and conclusion of the departmental proceeding during the pendency of a Criminal Case for the self same charge is vitiated in law. Learned counsel further submitted that the initiation and conclusion of the departmental proceeding during the pendency of a Criminal Case for the self same charge is vitiated in law. It is contended that the finding recorded by the inquiry officer is wholly perverse and unjustified inasmuch as no independent witnesses have been examined save and except the complainant Mr. C.S. Banerjee who has also not said! anything before the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel further submitted that in criminal case, the petitioner has been acquitted by the Criminal Court, this fact has been brought on record by the petitioner by filing supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the entire inquiry and the order of dismissal was vitiated in law for the reasons that admittedly, copy of the inquiry report was not served upon the petitioner nor he was allowed to have access to the said inquiry report. In this connection, learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director ECIL V/s. B. Karunakaran, AIR 1994 SC 1074 : 1993 (4) SCC 727 : 1994-I-LLJ-162 and in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony V/s. Gold Mines & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1416 : 1999 (3) SCC 679 : 1999-I-LLJ-1094. 5. On the other hand, Mr. A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the Management has drawn my attention to relevant paragraphs of the inquiry report, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the Writ application and submitted that the inquiry officer after considering the entire facts of the case and evidence on record came to the conclusion that the charges have been proved against the petitioner. On the question of non supply of inquiry report learned counsel submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. In this connection learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. K. Singh V/s. Central Bank of India & Ors., 1996 (6) SCC 415 : 1997-1- LLJ-537. 6. A copy of the charge-sheet has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the Writ application from perusal whereof it appears that the following two charges were framed: "1. 6. A copy of the charge-sheet has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the Writ application from perusal whereof it appears that the following two charges were framed: "1. That on March 1, 1990 at about 4.30 p.m. you left your place of work (while you were scheduled for duty at the mine) and entered the office of Finance Officer, Shri C.S. Banerjee of Amlabad Project Area without permission or authorisation and indulged in fighting, disorderly and indecent behaviour towards him (Shri C. S. Banerjee),who was on duty. 2. That on the same date and at the same time as indicated in charge No. 1 above, /. e., on March 1, 1990 at about 4.30 p.m. you abused Sri C.S. Banerjee, Finance Officer, Amlabad Project Area, in filthy and objectionable languages and indulged in violence towards him by catching hold of him by shirt collar, dragged him out of his office chair, pulled him out of his office and assaulted him in the corridor outside his room. You have also hit Sri C.S. Banerjee with the Mining stick which you had in your hand." 7. From reading the aforesaid charges together, it is manifest that both the charges are interrelated inasmuch as the charge is that on March 1, 1990 at about 4.30 p.m. petitioner left his place of work and entered into office of the Finance Officer, Sri. C.S. Banerjee without permission and abused him in filthy and objectionable language and indulged in fighting towards him by catching hold of him by shirt collar and dragging him out of his office. In other words, the charges against the petitioner is of two parts, firstly petitioner left his place of work and entered the office of Sri C.S. Banerjee, Finance Officer, Amlabad Project and secondly, after entering the office, the petitioner, abused him in filthy and objectionable language and caught hold of his collar and dragged him out of his office. Before Inquiry Officer, the management examined only C.S. Banerjee as witness and submitted necessary documents including the complaint and the statements of some officers. In his deposition, Mr. C.S. Banerjee has stated that whatever he had written in the complaint regarding this matter he has nothing to say any further. Before Inquiry Officer, the management examined only C.S. Banerjee as witness and submitted necessary documents including the complaint and the statements of some officers. In his deposition, Mr. C.S. Banerjee has stated that whatever he had written in the complaint regarding this matter he has nothing to say any further. This witness was cross-examined by the petitioner and in his cross- examination, he has stated that the incidence took place in presence of Sri S.R. Paswan, Surendra Nath Shekhar and S. Bala Subramaniam. It is worth mentioning here that these persons have not been examined by the management. However, the inquiry officer after analysing the evidence adduced from the side of the petitioner came to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioner so far as abusing of Sri Banerjee has not been proved but the charge framed against the petitioner regarding entering into the office ahd catching hold of collar of Mr. Banerjee and dragging him out from his office has been proved. On the basis of the Inquiry report, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of dismissal. Relevant portion of the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner is reproduced herein below: "This has reference to charge-sheet No. BCCL. O. AmBD. PS. 2774-83 dated March 2/3, 1990 issued to Sri N.N. Sinha, Overman, Amlabad colliery by the then Dy. C.M.E./Agent, Amlabad Colliery/Project. After considering the explanation of Sri N.N. Sinha to the charge-sheet and finding it to be not satisfactory Sri B. Pathat, Dy. P.M. Amlabad colliery was appointed as the Inquiry Officer and later Sri R. J. Singh, Dy. P.M., Bhowra Area was appointed as the Inquiry Officer in his place. The entire inquiry was held by Sri R. S. Singh. Sri R. S. Singh has since submitted his report of inquiry in which Sri N.N. Sinha Inquiry officer gave findings to the effect that the charge framed against Sri N.N. Sinha vide the above charge-sheet was proved and he is guilty of the same except the charge of abusing Sri C.S. Banerjee. The entire case file has been submitted to me. Sri N.N. j Sinha will be supplied with a copy of the inquiry report on his applying for the same. I have carefully considered the proceeding of the inquiry report and connected papers and applied my mind independently to the same. The entire case file has been submitted to me. Sri N.N. j Sinha will be supplied with a copy of the inquiry report on his applying for the same. I have carefully considered the proceeding of the inquiry report and connected papers and applied my mind independently to the same. As a result, I have come to the same conclusion as the Inquiry Officer. That is to say that Sri N.N. Sinha Overman is guilty of the charges framed against him except the charges of abusing Sri C. S. Banerjee. I have considered the gravity of misconduct proved against Sri N.N. Sinha and find that there are no extenuating circumstances in his favour. The misconduct committed by him is very serious in nature. Considering all these facts, I have come to the conclusion that this is a fit case for the dismissal of Sri N.N. Sinha Overman is hereby dismissed from the service of BCCL with immediate effect and he will cease to be in its service with immediate effect. Sri N.N. Singh Overman is advised to vacate the quarter of BCCL under his occupation and hand over all the articles of property of BCCL in his possession and the quarter to Dy. P.M. Amlabad colliery within a week of issue of this order. If he fails to do so, steps will be taken to enforce the rights of the Management against him. The dues of Sri N.N. Sinha will be settled after he complies with the above directions and after his commitments (sic) have been checked." 8. From the impugned order, quoted herein above, itjs manifest that the charges levelled against the petitioner of abusing Sri C.S. Banerjee have not been proved. It is also evident that copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner before passing the impugned order as there is direction in the order itself for supply of copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner. 9. Firstly, I will take up the point raised by Mr. Sinha as to whether the entire departmental proceedings and the order of dismissal is vitiated in law for non-supply of copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner. In this regard, few decisions of the Supreme Court are worth to be considered at this stage. 9. Firstly, I will take up the point raised by Mr. Sinha as to whether the entire departmental proceedings and the order of dismissal is vitiated in law for non-supply of copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner. In this regard, few decisions of the Supreme Court are worth to be considered at this stage. In the case of Managing Director, ECIL V/s. B, Karunakaran (supra) the law has been wll settled that when inquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, delinquent employee has right to receive copy of the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusion with regard to acquit or innocence of the employee with regard to charges levelled against him. The denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence is breach of the principle of natural justice. However, it is held that merely because of non furnishing of copy of the inquiry repor the delinquent is not entitled to be reinstated with back wages mechanically. The Court or Tribunal should furnish him with a copy and afford opportunity to show as to how non furnishing of foe report has prejudiced him gravelyto the ultimate punshment awarded to him. In the case of S.K. Singh V/s. Central Bank of India & Ors. (supra), their Lordships held that for non- supply of copy of the inquiry 25 report if the delinquent failed to establish that serious prejudice was caused to him that the ultimate order of punishment cannot be said to be illegal and unjustified. 10. Admittedly, copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner before the impugned order/ of punishment was passed. Now the question therefore comes for consideration is whether non-supply of the copy has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. As noticed above, the inquiry officer mainly based his conclusion after analysing the evidence adduced by the delinquent employee for the reason that excepting the evidence of Sri C. S. Banerjee, no 4 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the Management. The complainant Sri C.S. Banerjee in his evidence simply affirmed all the charges written in the complaint. From perusal of the report of the inquiry officer it is evident 4 that it is only because the petitioner failed to establish his defence, inquiry officer came to the conclusion that charges have been proved. The complainant Sri C.S. Banerjee in his evidence simply affirmed all the charges written in the complaint. From perusal of the report of the inquiry officer it is evident 4 that it is only because the petitioner failed to establish his defence, inquiry officer came to the conclusion that charges have been proved. It is not a case where the enquiry officer on the basis of evidence adduced by the managements has come to theconclusion thatthe charges have been proved. In such type of cases, I am of the opinion that non-supply of copy of the inquiry report before passing order of punishment will cause serious prejudice to the delinquent employee. On this ground alone, the order of punishment cannot be sustained in law. 11. Besides the above, the order of punishment cannot be sustained in law on the basis of conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer. As noticed above, two charges are inter related, i. e., entering into the office of Sri C. S. Banerjee abused him with filthy language and then caught hold of his shirt collar and dragged him out of his office. Both the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority have affirmed that charge of abusing of Mr. Banerjee by the petitioner has not been established. It is rather surprisingly that when first stage of the charge namely abusing with filthy language has not been established then, how foe authorities have come to foe conclusion foal foe charge of catahinghoYd of the shirt collar and dragging theofficerout of theoffice has beenestablished when admittedly no independent witnesses have been examined on behalf of the management. 12. It is also important to notice here that for the same charge criminal case was lodged against the petitioner which has ended in acquittal in terms of the judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bokaro in G.R. Case No. 213/90. In the criminal case, although I prosecution examined the witnesses but they have failed to establish the charges against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubts. In such situation 35 where the petitioner is acquitted by judicial pronouncement, it would be unjust and unfair to allow the findings recorded in departmental proceedings and there cannot be a direction for rehearing of the departmental proceedings at the stage of non-supply of the inquiry report. In such situation 35 where the petitioner is acquitted by judicial pronouncement, it would be unjust and unfair to allow the findings recorded in departmental proceedings and there cannot be a direction for rehearing of the departmental proceedings at the stage of non-supply of the inquiry report. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony V/s. Bharat Gold Mines (supra). 13. taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also to having regard to the fact that petitioner has been to acquitted by the Criminal Court, the order of dismissal cannot be sustained in law. 14. Now, the only question arises is as to whether the petitioner would be entitled to Detail back wages from the date of dismissal. Admittedly, because of the departmental proceedings and the criminal case petitioner has been harassed and under went mental pain and agony for the last eight years. It is not a case where because of the laches on the part of the petitioner there had been delay in departmental proceedings or challenging the order of punishment before this Court rather it is a case that because of delay petitioner remained out of the service for about eight years. Petitioner is, therefore, entitled to get back wages throughout. 15. The writ application is, therefore, allowed and the order of punishment is set aside. Consequently, respondent-authority is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages. There shall be no order as to cost.