S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by a learned single Judge of this court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed on the ground that the disciplinary action taken by the appellants herein has been vitiated by reason of non-supply of enquiry officer s report. Facts: ( 2 ) THE respondent was initially appointed as Scale-1 Officer in 1984 in the appellant-Bank. On 11. 7. 1987 he was issued a charge-sheet containing five charges. He was placed under suspension pending enquiry with effect from 31. 7. 1987. The enquiry Officer who conducted an enquiry against the respondent submitted report holding that charges l (b) and 4 (b) are proved. Upon consideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority by orders dated 1. 2. 1991 imposed the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in incremental scale from the stage as on the date of suspension i. e. , from Rs. 1620/- to the first stage i. e. , Rs. 1550/ -. The period of suspension was treated as not spent on duty. The appellate authority rejected the appeal preferred by the respondent by order dated 7. 9. 1991. Assailing the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, the respondent filed the writ petition, inter alia, urging that he was not furnished with the report of the enquiry officer along with the show-cause notice for the proposed punishment and thus principles of natural justice were violated. Relying upon the decision of a Division bench of this Court in WA No. 1029 of 1999 wherein this Court had an occasion to deal with Regulation 30 (2) of the manjira Gramecna Bank Staff Service regulations, 1983, which is also the subject- matter of dispute involved herein, the learned single Judge held that the respondent has been prejudiced by non-supply of the report of the Enquiry Officer and accordingly set aside the order of punishment as also the order of the appellate authority. It may be noticed herein that in WA No. 1029 of 1999, this Court held that non-supply to the enquiry report and issuance of a show-cause notice proposing the punishment vitiated the enquiry as prejudice was inherent in the process and, therefore, the employee is entitled to the relief of invalidation of the penalty order. It may be noticed herein that in WA No. 1029 of 1999, this Court held that non-supply to the enquiry report and issuance of a show-cause notice proposing the punishment vitiated the enquiry as prejudice was inherent in the process and, therefore, the employee is entitled to the relief of invalidation of the penalty order. Submissions : ( 3 ) MR. K. Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that having regard to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, it must be held that non-supply of a copy of the Enquiry Officer s report ipso facto does not prejudice the delinquent employee warranting invalidation of the disciplinary proceedings. In support of the same, mr. Srinivasamurthy has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in EC1l v. Karunakar (supra), Addl, Dist. Magistrate (City) Agra v. Prahhakar Chatitrvedi, (1996) 2 SCC 12 , S. K. Singh v. Central Bank of india, 1997 (1) LLJ 537 , Oriental Insurance company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan, 2001 (2) llj 444 = 2001 (89) FLR 865, Nickel ranjan Bhoumik v. Tripura Grameena Bank, 2001 (2) LLJ 133, Union Bank of India v. Viswamohan (supra), Aligarh Muslim university v. Mansur Ali Khan, 2000 (7) scc 529 and State Bank of Patiala v. S. K. Sharma (supra ). ( 4 ) MR. Srinivas, learned Counsel appearing on behlaf of the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the respondent has suffered great prejudice by reason of non-supply of the report of the Enquiry Officer inasmuch as the officer has not only relied upon the evidence which is not legally acceptable but also in violation of the procedure laid down by the NABARD. The learned Counsel would contend that had a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer been supplied, the respondent could have shown that the complainant in his deposition has not supported the written complaint. The learned Counsel would further contend that the report of the Enquiry Officer apart from being fallacious is self-contradictory so far as Charge No. 5 (b) is concerned. The learned Counsel would further submit that even the appellate authority has failed to consider these aspects of the matter and dismissed the appeal in limini without fulfilling the conditions laid down in regulation 30 (2 ). The learned Counsel would further submit that even the appellate authority has failed to consider these aspects of the matter and dismissed the appeal in limini without fulfilling the conditions laid down in regulation 30 (2 ). ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel would contend that where the report of the Enquiry officer is based on no evidence and thus perverse, even the Writ Court can interfere in such matters. Strong reliance in this connection has placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra, 1999 (7) SCC 739 - AIR 1999 SC 3734 . Findings : ( 6 ) THE question as to whether only because a copy of the enquiry report has not been furnished upon the delinquent employee, the same shall be treated as prejudicial or not was referred to a Full bench of this Court. Liberhan, CJ. , speaking for the Full Bench of this Court, on a consideration of the decisions of the Apex court in Managing Director, ECJL, hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074 , S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, (1980) 4 scc 379 , K. L Tripathi v. State Bank of india, (1984) 1 SCC 43 , State Bank of patiala v. S. K. Sharma, (1996) 3 SCC 364 , rajendra Singh v. State of M. P. , (1996) 5 scc 540, M. C. Mehla v. Union of India, 1999) 6 SCC 237, Aligarh muslim university v. Mansoor Ali Khan, 2000 air SCW 2976 and Union Bank of india v. Vishwa Mohan, (1998) 4 SCC 310 , held: it is thus seen that non-furnishing of the enquiry report before imposition of punishment cannot per se constitute prejudice and consequently result in invalidation of the disciplinary proceedings. The charged employee is obligated to specifically plead and demonstrate the prejudice caused to him by the non-furnishing of the enquiry report. In the light of the above principles, we declare that the judgment of the Division bench of this Court in WA No. 1029 of 1999 dated 28. 10. 1999 does not lay down the principle that the mere non-furnishing of the enquiry report to the charged employee per se amounts to prejudice warranting invalidation of the disciplinary proceedings even without the charged employee having specifically pleaded and proved that he suffered prejudice on account of such non-furnishing of enquiry report. 10. 1999 does not lay down the principle that the mere non-furnishing of the enquiry report to the charged employee per se amounts to prejudice warranting invalidation of the disciplinary proceedings even without the charged employee having specifically pleaded and proved that he suffered prejudice on account of such non-furnishing of enquiry report. ( 7 ) HAVING regard to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court referred to above, although the learned Counsel appearing for the parties have argued at length before us as to whether the non-supply of copy of the Enquiry Officer s report ipso facto causes prejudice or not, we are not inclined to go into the said aspect of the matter. It stands admitted that a copy of the Enquiry Officer s report was furnished to the respondent on 1. 2. 1991 after the order imposing the punishment was passed. ( 8 ) IT was, therefore, necessary for the respondent to show that by reason of non-furnishing of the said report, he has been prejudiced. Charges l (b) and 4 (b), which are alleged to have been proved against the respondent are as follows: charge l (b): Gross violation of Manjira grameena Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1983. He was reported to have taken hand-loans from the following constituents. ( 21 ) IN view of our findings aforementioned, we have no option but to set aside the order of the appellate authority dated 7. 9. 1991. It is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal fresh on merits in accordance with law in conformity with the requirement of regulation 33 (2) of the Regulations after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent. ( 22 ) THE writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.