Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent dated 28.09.1999 made in Memorandum No.9861/520/A4/99-3 confirming the proceedings of the first respondent dated 17.09.1999 made in memo No.544/ADM.V(1)/F.DP/98-1 quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with attendant benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner was appointed as a Casual Labourer in the year 1971; later on promoted as a Tester Grade II in the year 1972; as Tester Grade I in the year 1981. In the year 1984 he was selected as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by internal selection. While so, on 04.02.1992 he was arrested in a criminal case for having demanded and accepted bribe. But he was released on bail on the very same day. The criminal case was not prosecuted further as no charge sheet was filed. On the other hand, he was proceeded departmentally. A charge memo was issued on 09.05.1993 that he demanded gratification of Rs.2000/-on 04.02.1992 and accepted Rs.1000/-. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges were proved then he was dismissed from service. Against that he preferred an appeal and that was also rejected. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The respondents filed counter, admitting the fact of the petitioner's appointment and promotion, and have stated that the petitioner was also earlier imposed a punishment of 'stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect' for having committed certain serious lapses in discharging his official duties, during October, 1991; the service record of the petitioner does not speak about his sincerity in his duties; that the petitioner was trapped and arrested for a corruption case based on a complaint filed by one A.R.Palanisamy of Anangur, Thiruchengode Taluk against the petitioner at the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Salem and registered as Crime No.2/AC/92 on 03.02.1992; that the petitioner has demanded and accepted the bribe Rs.1000/- from the said A.R.Palanisamy, the petitioner was caught red handed; and the petitioner was subjected to the phenophthalene test and found that the results were slightly positive. Inasmuch as the discreet enquiry into the matter led to show that there was prima facie case noticed on the part of the petitioner, specific charges were framed against him by proceedings dated 19.05.1993.The petitioner was directed to submit his defence statement for the said charges levelled against him within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of the charge memo. The petitioner has requested certain documents and also time to submit his defence statement. The petitioner was allowed to peruse the documents by memo dated 07.04.1994. The petitioner has submitted his explanation along with the questionnaire duly filled up. Thereafter domestic enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer gave his findings on 04.04.1998. After careful examination of the relevant records, evidence in the enquiry proceedings, the first respondent has accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer; a copy of the enquiry findings has also been communicated to the petitioner on 16.05.1998 with instructions to submit further representations on the findings of the inquiry and the petitioner submitted his representation on 05.06.1998 and the same was also examined. The petitioner has neither adduced any fresh points nor produced any valid records to prove his innocence of the charges. The first respondent awarded a punishment of dismissal from service. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent also rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. There is no valid ground to interfere with the findings of the appellate authority and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Mr.S.Elamurugan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when charge memo was served before enquiry by the Enquiry Officer, he made a request to furnish certain documents including the copy of the First Information Report, Forensic Test Report and a few other documents. But a reply was given to him by the Board stating that the Forensic Test report would not be relied upon and, therefore, that would not be necessary for him and hence, he was not given that report. Bu the Enquiry Officer relied upon the said report also and gave his findings that the charges were proved. Therefore, the proceedings adopted by the Enquiry Officer is violative of the principles of natural justice. Bu the Enquiry Officer relied upon the said report also and gave his findings that the charges were proved. Therefore, the proceedings adopted by the Enquiry Officer is violative of the principles of natural justice. Further, inasmuch as the documents that were sought for by him were not furnished, but were relied upon against him vitiates the entire proceedings gets vitiated,and hence the order of dismissal passed on such Enquiry Report is to be rejected. 5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and another ( AIR 1998 SC 3038 ). Learned counsel further submitted that the Supreme Court has relied upon the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Kasinath Dikshita v. Union of India ( (1986) 3 SCC 229 ) wherein it has also laid down as follows: "... this lapse would vitiate the departmental proceedings unless it was shown and established as a fact that non-supply of copies of those documents had not caused any prejudice to the delinquent in his defence". Therefore, the enquiry was bad. Inasmuch as for non-supply of documents required by him, it has caused prejudice to him. He further submitted that the Enquiry Officer relies upon the document which was not furnished to him and, therefore, it has to be set aside. He referred to the findings of the Enquiry Officer and submitted that but for the Forensic test report, the Enquiry Officer would not have come to the conclusion that the charges have been proved. Therefore, the enquiry officer's proceedings has to be set aside, and the writ petition has to be allowed. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/Board submitted that the enquiry proceedings cannot be said to be vitiated in view of the fact that certain documents required by the petitioner were not furnished by the department. While applying the principles of natural justice, the Court must see whether there is substantial compliance of the principle of natural justice in the proceedings. He further submitted that the Enquiry Officer's findings is not based only on the forensic test report, but it is also based upon the oral evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, non-supply of the copies does not vitiate the entire proceedings. He further submitted that the Enquiry Officer's findings is not based only on the forensic test report, but it is also based upon the oral evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, non-supply of the copies does not vitiate the entire proceedings. He further relied upon the un-reported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court to the effect that while charges of serious nature like acceptance of bribe, is detected, the authority must impose the punishment of dismissal from service and no leniency should be shown in such matter. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the proceedings adopted by the department. 7. The main contention of the petitioner is that since the document that was requested by him were not furnished to him, it caused prejudice to him, whereas the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Board is that there is no prejudice caused to him by non-supply of documents. 8. The Enquiry Officer has given the findings after extracting the oral evidence adduced before him which is as follows: "Therefore, he has stated that as per the evidence given by the witnesses and also the forensic test report, the charges are proved." From this it is seen that the Enquiry Officer has based his findings not only on the forensic test report but also on the evidence of the witnesses examined before him. 9. It is true that the petitioner wanted the forensic test report to be furnished to him and the Enquiry Officer replied that it would not be relied upon. But, he has, in fact, referred to in the order and also relied upon it. Therefore, this portion of the Enquiry Officer's report has to be eschewed. Even excluding this portion of evidence relating to forensic test report, still the oral evidence adduced by number of witnesses numbering eight, are available and on the basis of the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the charges can be said to have been proved. It is not as if in the absence of forensic test report, the charges are not proved. 10. Further in the judgment of the Supreme Curt relied upon by the petitioner in State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and another ( AIR 1998 SC 3038 , itself is following patron is found: "The copies of those statements, though asked for by the respondent, were not supplied to him. 10. Further in the judgment of the Supreme Curt relied upon by the petitioner in State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal and another ( AIR 1998 SC 3038 , itself is following patron is found: "The copies of those statements, though asked for by the respondent, were not supplied to him. Since there was a failure on the part of the appellant in this regard too, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the principles of natural justice were violated and the respondent was not afforded an effective opportunity of hearing, particularly as the appellant failed to establish that non-supply of the copies of statements recorded during preliminary enquiry had not caused any prejudice to the respondent in defending himself". Further, in State Bank of Patiala and others v. S.K.Sharma ((1996) 3 SCC, 364, the Supreme Court has summarised the principles emerging from various decisions, which are as follows: "(1) An order passed imposing a punishment on an employee consequent upon a disciplinary/departmental enquiry in violation of the rules/regulations/ statutory provisions governing such enquiries should not be set aside automatically. The Court or the Tribunal should enquire whether (a) the provision violated is a substantive nature or (b) whether it is procedural in character. (2) A substantive provision has normally to be complied with as explained hereinbefore and the theory of substantial compliance or the test of prejudice would not be applicable in such a case. (3) In the case violation of a procedural provision, the position is this: procedural provisions are generally meant for affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity to the delinquent officer/employee. They are, generally speaking, conceived pin his interest. Violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. Except cases falling under -- "no notice". "no opportunity" and "no hearing' categories, the complaint of violation of procedural provision should be examined from the point of view of prejudice, viz., whether such violation has prejudiced the delinquent officer/employee in defending himself properly and effectively. If it is found that he has been so prejudiced, appropriate orders have to be made to repair and remedy the prejudice including setting aside the enquiry and/or the order of punishment. If no prejudice is established to have resulted therefrom, it is obvious, no interference is called for. If it is found that he has been so prejudiced, appropriate orders have to be made to repair and remedy the prejudice including setting aside the enquiry and/or the order of punishment. If no prejudice is established to have resulted therefrom, it is obvious, no interference is called for. In this connection, it may be remembered that there may be certain procedural provisions which are of a fundamental character, whose violation is by itself proof of prejudice. The Court may not insist on proof of prejudice in such cases. As explained in the body of the judgment, take a case where there is a provision expressly providing that after the evidence of the employer/government is over, the employee shall be given an opportunity to lead defence in his evidence, and in a given case,the enquiry officer does not give that opportunity in spite of the delinquent officer/employee asking for it. The prejudice is self-evident. No proof of prejudice as such need be called for in such a case. To repeat, the test is one of prejudice, i.e., whether the person has received a fair hearing considering all things. Now, this very aspect can also be looked at from the point of view of directory and mandatory provisions, if one is so inclined. The principle stated under (4) hereinbelow is only another way of looking at the same aspect as is dealt with herein and not a different or distinct principle. "4(a) In the case of a procedural provision which is not of a mandatory character, the compliant of violation has to be examined from the standpoint of substantial compliance. Be that as it may, the order passed in violation of such a provision can be set aside only where such violation has occasioned prejudice to the delinquent employee. (emphasis supplied) 4(b) In the case of violation of a procedural provision, which is of a mandatory character, it has to be ascertained whether the provision is conceived in the interest of the person proceeded against or in public interest. If it is found to be the former, then it must be seen whether the delinquent officer has waived the said requirement, either expressly or by his conduct. If he is found to have waived it, then the order of punishment cannot be set aside on the ground of the said violation. If it is found to be the former, then it must be seen whether the delinquent officer has waived the said requirement, either expressly or by his conduct. If he is found to have waived it, then the order of punishment cannot be set aside on the ground of the said violation. If, on the other hand, it is found that the delinquent officer/employee has not waived it or that the provision could not be waived by him, then the Court or Tribunal should make appropriate directions (include the setting aside of the order of punishment), keeping in mind the approach adopted by the Constitution Bench in B.Karunakar ( (1993) 4 SCC 727 ). The ultimate tent is always same, viz., test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing, as it may be called". The above principles extracted by the Supreme Court show that only when the violations has caused prejudice to the delinquent employee, the proceedings can be set aside. 11. In this case, as stated above, all the other documents, except forensic test report, have been furnished. No doubt the other documents asked for were not relied upon by the Enquiry Officer. As stated above, even excluding the report of the forensic test report, still the oral evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer is sufficient to prove the charges. Therefore, merely because the forensic test report was not furnished to him, it has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. 12. Further a Division Bench of this Court in K.S.Subramanian v. The Chairman, Tamilnadu Electricity Board,Madras and two others dated 13.03.1997 and made in W.A.No.167 of 1997 has held, "However, we must point out that in this case, the Disciplinary Authority viz., the Regional Chief Engineer, Distribution, Madurai Region, Madurai has failed to exercise his judgement in the matter of imposition of penalty judiciously. When an official is charged with corruption and the charge of corruption is proved, as in the instant case not one but four charges of corruption are held to have been proved the penalty that should have been imposed, was dismissal from service. Instead of that, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty of reduction in rank to lower post of Commercial Assistant for a period of two years on duty with cumulative effect. Instead of that, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty of reduction in rank to lower post of Commercial Assistant for a period of two years on duty with cumulative effect. It may be pointed out here that the Electricity Board, apart from the fact that it is a State under-taking, it is a public utility concern. It has to take care to ensure that there is no scope for corruption and corrupt elements are weeded out. It is possible only when such case are dealt with severely and penalty of dismissal is imposed. There should not be and no one should show any mercy in such case. When such officers are booked and charges are proved, the only way to maintain discipline, integrity and honesty in the service of the Board is to dismiss such officials. Therefore, we are constrained to place on record that the Regional Chief Engineer, Distribution, Madurai Region, Madurai has done a great disservice to the Electricity Board and to its administration by taking a lenient view and imposing the punishment of reduction to a lower rank for two years only, when the appellant should have been dismissed. We are also of the view that this is a case which requires to be enquired into in order to find out as to what prevailed upon Regional Chief Engineer to impose such an inconsequential punishment in a case of corruption". Therefore, in the present case of acceptance of illegal gratification, the punishment of dismissal has been rightly imposed. 13. In the circumstances, for the reasons stated above, the non-supplying the document required by him had not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, no interference is sought for by this Court on the impugned order. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.