JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya and Lakshman Uraon, JJ. 1. The Respondent-Byomkesh Mishra while functioning as Supervisor- III in Mechanical Department of appellant-Hindustan Copper Limited, he was proceeded departmentally on the charge that he had fraudulently drawn 15 pieces of 30314 bearing each costing a sum of Rs. 2140 approximately from the Mines Stores of the appellant company, Mosabani and misappropriated 11 out of 15 bearings drawn by him. On conclusion of enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer he submitted a report on May 14, 1993. The appellant company, thereafter, dismissed Respondent-B Mishra from their services vide letter No. DGM(M)/F/4612/93 dated June 7, 1993. The Respondent B. Mishra thereafter, moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2330/99(R) against the order of dismissal when he was asked to prefer appeal. The Respondent-B Mishra in view of the Courts order preferred appeal which was considered by the Executive Director who set aside the dismissal order on the ground that before imposing punishment, the charged employee Mr. B. Mishra was not provided with a copy of the enquiry report. 2. The competent authority thereafter, served a copy of the enquiry report on Mr. Mishra on October 23, 1993 and after taking into consideration the representation preferred by Mr. Mishra on November 1, 1993 and hearing given on December 17, 1993. Mr. Mishra was again dismissed from service vide order dated December 18, 1993. 3. The Respondent-Byomkesh Mishra (Writ Petitioner) thereafter, again moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 430/1994 (R) and took plea that the enquiry report consisted of 66 (sixty six) pages, but part report i. e. only 6 (six) pages of the enquiry report was supplied to him. The learned single judge by impugned order and judgment dated March 10, 1995 set aside the order of dismissal dated December 18, 1993 accepting the aforesaid submission though liberty given to the competent authority to proceed in accordance with law. 4. In this appeal, the appellant has taken specific plea that the enquiry report consists of only 6(six) pages which was supplied to Mr. Mishra (Writ petitioner). The total page of the file consist of 66 (sixty six) pages including the 6 (six) pages enquiry report. The learned counsel for the appellant also produced the original record from which it appears that the order-sheets, etc. Mishra (Writ petitioner). The total page of the file consist of 66 (sixty six) pages including the 6 (six) pages enquiry report. The learned counsel for the appellant also produced the original record from which it appears that the order-sheets, etc. consist of about 60 (sixty) pages and the enquiry report, is of 6 (six) pages a copy of which was supplied to Mr. Mishra (writ petitioner). 5. In the facts and circumstances, there being error of record in the order and judgment dated March 10, 1995 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 430 of 1994 (R), Mr. Mishra (writ petitioner) having provided with a complete copy of the enquiry report consist 6 (six) pages, the judgment passed by the learned single Judge cannot be upheld. 6. The other submission made by the counsel for the Respondent (writ petitioner) that the enquiry was not conducted, giving proper opportunity to Mr. Mishra. A number of documents/exhibits were taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer without forwarding the copy to the charged employee. However, in absence of such specific plea in this respect, it is not possible for this Court to give any finding one or the other way. 7. Mr. Mishra (writ, petitioner) is given liberty even at this stage to prefer appeal before the competent authority within 30 days, if he is in a position to show that any particular document/exhibit has been taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer but the copy of the same was not served or shown to him. 8. For the grounds stated above, the judgment passed by the learned single Judge dated March 10, 1995 in C.W.J.C. No. 430/1994 (R) is set aside. 9. The appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.