JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. The Appellant in this appeal, who was the writ Petitioner in Civil Rule No. 216/1991, has assailed the judgment and order dated 30.04.97 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition and upholding the order of penalty imposed on the Petitioner/Appellant pursuant to a departmental proceeding. 2. The Petitioner/Appellant while was serving as Tehsildar under the Respondents was placed under suspension way back in 1985 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding. He was served with memorandum of charge sheet dated 22.04.85 by which altogether four charges were leveled against him. All the charges were pertaining to financial irregularities committed by the Petitioner/Appellant. According to those charges, although the Petitioner had collected the amounts in question as land revenue, but he did not deposit the same and the amounts were also not entered in the Register in question as well as in the cashbook. 3. The Petitioner, in response to the memorandum of charge sheets, submitted his defense statement denying the charges levelled against him. A regular departmental enquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority held the Petitioner to be guilty of all the charges except charge No. 4. On the basis of such findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service by order dated 04.04.90. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority, although upheld the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority, interfered with the penalty of removal from service by substituting the same to that of a penalty of reduction in pay to Rs. 970/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 970-40-1290-45-1650-50-2400/- for a period of five years with effect from the date of the order. The appellate order was passed on 21.06.90. 4. Being not satisfied with the appellate order dated 21.6.90, the Petitioner/Appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing Civil Rule 21.6.1991. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.4.97 upheld the order of penalty and dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved the present appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard Mr. A.M. Lodh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Lodh, learned Advocate for the Appellant. We have also heard Mr. U.B. Saha, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, assisted by learned Advocate Mr. Being aggrieved the present appeal has been filed. 5. We have heard Mr. A.M. Lodh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A. Lodh, learned Advocate for the Appellant. We have also heard Mr. U.B. Saha, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, assisted by learned Advocate Mr. A. Ghosh. Mr. Lodh, learned Sr. Counsel strenuously argued that the departmental enquiry having not been conducted as per the procedure laid down under Rule 14 of the CSS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the entire proceeding we vitiated and the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that aspect of the matter. He submitted that the Petitioner/Appellant was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing and the enquiry was conducted ex-parte against him. Adding insult to the injury, the Petitioner/Appellant was also not provided with the copy of the inquiry report enabling him to make a representation against the same before imposing the order of penalty. He also submitted that the Petitioner/Appellant was not provided with the documents on which the disciplinary authority placed reliance towards bringing the charge against him. 6. Mr. U.B. Saha, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and order and submitted that there was no infirmity in conducting the departmental enquiry. He submitted that the Petitioner/Appellant was afforded with all reasonable opportunity of hearing in the departmental enquiry and it was the Petitioner/Appellant who did not avail the opportunity. Finally he submitted that the appellate authority having considered all the grounds urged by the Petitioner in its true perspective, there is no infirmity in the said order and the Petitioner should be happy with the reduced penalty than the one earlier imposed on him. 7. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties. We have also considered the materials available on records including the judgment in question. The learned Single Judge on perusal of the materials available on records including the submissions made by the learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant and also upon hearing the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, did not find any infirmity in the enquiry conducted by the I.O. The grounds, which have even now been urged in this appeal by the Appellant, have been gone into and considered by the learned Single Judge and held the same to be not tenable. Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant and also upon hearing the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, did not find any infirmity in the enquiry conducted by the I.O. The grounds, which have even now been urged in this appeal by the Appellant, have been gone into and considered by the learned Single Judge and held the same to be not tenable. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge, however, taking into consideration the grievance raised by the writ Petitioner regarding alleged non-fixation of his pay on the basis of Revision of Pay Rules, provided that the Petitioner be extended with such benefits. 8. The grounds, which have been urged by the learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant, were all taken case of by the appellate authority towards passing the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has also elaborately dealt with those grounds towards upholding the appellate order. However, we have also examined those grounds independently of the findings recorded by the said appellate authority and the learned Single Judge. 9. During the course of hearing, Mr. Lodh, learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant strenuously argued that the Petitioner/Appellant having not been supplied with the copy of the enquiry report, he was deprived of a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the same. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan as reported in : AIR 1991 SC 471 . There is no dispute relating to the proposition laid down in the said decision of the Apex Court. Whenever there is a departmental enquiry, the findings recorded by the I.O. by way of enquiry report, same is required to be furnished to the delinquent enabling him to make representation against the same. The Apex Court on 20.11.90. delivered the said judgment and the said proposition of law was made operative prospectively. 10. In the instant case, the Petitioner was imposed with the penalty of removal from service by order dated 4.4.90, which was much prior to the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court. Thus the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the case of the Petitioner/Appellant in view of the prospectivity of the same from the date of the judgment i.e. 20.11.90. Thus the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the case of the Petitioner/Appellant in view of the prospectivity of the same from the date of the judgment i.e. 20.11.90. Even otherwise also, as has been clarified by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions, mere non-furnishing of the enquiry report by itself will not render the order of penalty illegal unless the test of prejudice is established. 11. In the instant case, apart from non-applicability of the said judgment to the case of the Petitioner/Appellant, no prejudice could also be shown because of non-supply of the enquiry report before passing the order of removal from service. As against the argument of the learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant that the enquiry report was not at all supplied to him, we find that the Petitioner himself admitted in the writ petition the copy was furnished to him alongwith the order of removal dated 15.4.90. Such admission was made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition. Even as per the order of removal from service, the copy of the enquiry report was furnished to him. 12. Mr. Lodh, learned Sr. Counsel submitted that the Petitioner/Appellant was not provided with adequate opportunity of being heard by the I.O. inasmuch as the prayer made by the Petitioner for adjournment of hearing of the enquiry proceeding was not acceded to. He further submitted that the documents on which the disciplinary authority placed reliance were not furnished to the Petitioner. He also submitted that the Petitioner afterwards having deposited the amount in question, the gravity of the offence got diluted and that aspect of the matter ought to have been considered by the appellate authority. During the course of hearing, we asked Mr. Lodh to point out the specific pleas made in the departmental appeal or in the writ petition in tune with the submissions made by him. Mr. Lodh, apart from showing the general grounds urged in the writ petition could not pinpoint anything as to the alleged infirmities or procedural irregularities in conducting the enquiry. It is on record that the Petitioner/Appellant deposited the amount in question only after the order placing him under suspension was passed and a preliminary enquiry was conducted against him. Mr. Lodh, apart from showing the general grounds urged in the writ petition could not pinpoint anything as to the alleged infirmities or procedural irregularities in conducting the enquiry. It is on record that the Petitioner/Appellant deposited the amount in question only after the order placing him under suspension was passed and a preliminary enquiry was conducted against him. Thus, on the face of such admitted fact, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Petitioner/Appellant defalcated the amount as indicated in the charges framed against him, but in view of the fact that he was placed under suspension and a preliminary enquiry was conducted, he deposited the amount. Such deposited made by the Petitioner/Appellant did not dilute the charges. 13. As regards the plea of procedural irregularity committed by the I.O. in conducting the enquiry, nothing could be pointed out as to how such procedural irregularity allegedly committed by the I.O. even if held to be correct, caused prejudice to the defense of the Petitioner/Appellant. As noticed above, apart from making some swiping remarks in the writ petition nothing has been highlighted as to what were those procedural irregularity and that as to how the defense of the Petitioner was prejudiced. In the appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority also, the Petitioner did not make any such grievance. The appellate authority appropriately dealt with the grievance raised by him. It was on such consideration, the appellate authority although did not disagree with the findings recorded by the I.O. and the disciplinary authority interfered with the amount of penalty and converted the order of removal from service to that of reduction of pay in the time scale of pay taking a lenient view of the matter. 14. The Apex Court in the case of State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, as reported in : (1996) 3 SCC 364 laid down the law relating to the test of prejudice in departmental enquiry. It was pointed out that an order passed imposing a punishment on an employee consequent upon departmental enquiry in violation of rules/ regulations/statutory provisions governing such enquiries should not be set aside automatically and that the Court or Tribunal should enquire whether the provision violated is of a substantive nature or whether it is procedural in character. It was pointed out that an order passed imposing a punishment on an employee consequent upon departmental enquiry in violation of rules/ regulations/statutory provisions governing such enquiries should not be set aside automatically and that the Court or Tribunal should enquire whether the provision violated is of a substantive nature or whether it is procedural in character. When a substantive provision has normally to be complied with, violation of any and every procedural provision cannot be said to automatically vitiate the enquiry held or order passed. In every case, the test of prejudice will have to be examined and considered in the touchtone of the specific pleas raised by the delinquent. In the instant case, we find that apart from making some vague and indefinite allegations, the Petitioner/Appellant also failed to show any prejudice caused to his defence by such alleged violation of procedural norms. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant could point out any. 15. In the case of Additional District Magistrate v. Prabhakar Chaturvedi as reported in : (1996) 2 SCC 12 , the Apex Court did not interfere with the penalty of dismissal from service when the charge relating to temporary misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 21,000/ - was established. Referring to the plea of the writ Petitioner that the copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to him, the Apex Court found fault with the High Court in accepting such a plea in absence of any averment in the writ petition to that effect. As regards the plea of non-examination of witnesses and non-supply of documents, the Apex Court held that the High Court had erred in ignoring salient features of the case. In the instant case also there is no denial that the Petitioner/Appellant did not deposit the amounts in question by entering the same either in the Register or in the Cash Book. However, he deposited the amount only when he was placed under suspension and a preliminary enquiry was conducted against him. The Apex Court in the case of Municipal Committee v. Krishnan Behari as reported in : (1996) 2 SCC 714 held that there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal in cases involving corruption. It went on to observe that the amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant. The Apex Court in the case of Municipal Committee v. Krishnan Behari as reported in : (1996) 2 SCC 714 held that there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal in cases involving corruption. It went on to observe that the amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant. Finding fault with the interference with the order of punishment, the Apex Court held that such interference was under a total misapprehension of the relevant factors to be borne in mind in such a case. 16. In the instant case also the amount either misappropriated or temporarily misappropriated may be small, but the disciplinary authority was concerned with the conduct of the Petitioner/Appellant and on the basis of the definite findings recovered by the I.O. establishing the three charges out of four, imposed the penalty of removal from service. However, the Appellant authority although agreed with the findings recorded by the I.O. and the disciplinary authority interfered with the extreme penalty of removal from service and instead taking a lenient view of the matter submitted the same with the order of reduction in pay in the time scale of pay. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition took care of the plea raised by the Petitioner/Appellant that he was not extended with the benefits of the revision of pay in view of the order of penalty imposed on him and accordingly it was provided that the Petitioner be extended with the benefits of revision of pay as might be admissible to him. 17. In consideration of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, more particularly when the facts involved are more or less admitted by the Petitioner/Appellant himself and on his failure to establish the test of prejudice in conducting the enquiry proceeding against him. Needless to say that admission of facts relating to the charge amounts to admission of the charge itself. It is the own case of the Petitioner that he deposited the amounts in question when he was placed under suspension and a preliminary enquiry was conducted against him. 18. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal and accordingly same stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed