Judgment 1. While the petitioner was working as Comparing Clerk in the Office of the Coffectorate at Purhia, a charge-sheet was issued against him. 2. There is no dispute that as Comparing Clerk it was the duty of the petitioner to compare the copy or copies made by the Typist of the original and to ensure correctness thereof. These copies were prepared for the purpose of delivering certified qopies of the originals in the custody of the Collectorate. In order to facilitate issuance of certified copies of the originals in the custody of the Collectorate, certain Technical Rules have been frarmed. In terms thereof the person seeking the certified copy is required to make an application for the certified copy indicating his name as also the document of which certified copy has been applied for. Such an application is first dealt with by the Deputy Collector, After the Deputy Collector is satisfied that the application has been made in terms of the norms prescribed therefor, it is the duty of the Deputy Collector to send the application to the keeper of the original records. It thereupon becomes the obligation of the keeper of the original records to trace out the concerned record and thereupon to handover the same to the Typist for the purpose of making copy or copies thereof as has been applied for, After the Typist makes the copy or copies of such original record the original record as well as the copy pr copies thereof, as has been prepared by the typist are placed before the Comparing Clerk when it becomes the duty of the Comparing Clerk to verify whether the Typist has correctly copied the original record in the copy or copies prepared by him. Thereupon such compared copy or copies is/are placed before the appropriate authority, namely, the Deputy Collector or the Additional Collector or any other officer, who has been authorized, for the purpose of certifying that the copy or copies so made is/are the true and correct copy or copies of the original in the custody of the Collectorate. 3. In the charge-sheet the principal allegation against the petitioner was that he has manipulated an original record in the custody of the Collectorate. It was alleged that in the original records by interpolation some incorrect datas had been incorporated by using different ink and that the petitioner had done so. 3. In the charge-sheet the principal allegation against the petitioner was that he has manipulated an original record in the custody of the Collectorate. It was alleged that in the original records by interpolation some incorrect datas had been incorporated by using different ink and that the petitioner had done so. It was also alleged that the petitioher thereupon permitted a certified copy of such manipulated record to be obtained by a Person who does not exist and that too on the basis of an application where the applicant, apart from furnishing a presumed name, had not furnished any other particulars in relation to him. It was also alleged that the petitioner, while comparing was though duty bound to bring to the notice of his higher authorities the manipulations effected, in the original record, but he did not do so. Certain other insinuations in relation to the said matter had also been made against the petitioner in the charge-sheet. 4. The petitioner gave a reply to the charge-sheet. Therein he pointed out that he was not attached to the office when the alleged interpolation was made. He stated that it was his duty to compare the original, as stood, and the copies thereof, as made, and nothing more than that. He also contended that he could not express any opinion even for himself as to whether any manipulation has been made in the original and, accordingly had no authority to make any aspersions in relation to the matters recorded in the original records. 5. It appears that thereafter an Enquiry Officer was appointed and he directed the petitioner to appear before him on two occasions. It is the contention of the petitioner that nothing happened on those two occasions. Be that as it may, the counsel for the respondents has produced a copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer. From that it appears that the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner did not make the alleged interpolation. From the enquiry report it would be evidence that there was a document emanating from the Survey Department to support the insertion made in the original document but that document was a suspect document. From that it appears that the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner did not make the alleged interpolation. From the enquiry report it would be evidence that there was a document emanating from the Survey Department to support the insertion made in the original document but that document was a suspect document. Having held that the petitioner was not involved in the alleged manipulation the Enquiry Officer held despite noting that in terms of the provisions contained in the Technical Rules it was the duty of the record incharge to bring to the notice of the appropriate authority whenever there appeared to be any interpolation in the original record, that the petitioner too, as a Comparing Clerk while discharging the duties of the Government, was required to be more careful and should have brought to the notice of the appropriate authority the said interpolation before permitting issuance of a certified copy of the said interpolated record. In doing so, the Enquiry Officer did not take note of the fact that as a Comparing Clerk the petitioner had no occasion to be suspicious about any record kept and preserved by a superior. The Enquiry Officer also held, when only the name of the person applying f.or the certified copy was appearing in the application, it was the obligation of the petitioner to be more cautious and to bring the same to the notice of the higher authorities but, at the same, time, did not take note of the form, as prescribed which suggests that the applicant is required to give his name in the application only and nothing more in relation to him. The Enquiry Officer thus held that the petitioner has failed to discharge his governmental duties, although exonerated him of the charge of manipulation of the original record. 6. On the basis of the said enquiry report the petitioner has been dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority by issuing the impugned order, although before passing the impugned order no step was taken to supply a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. 7. 6. On the basis of the said enquiry report the petitioner has been dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority by issuing the impugned order, although before passing the impugned order no step was taken to supply a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. 7. It is now well settled in law that when an enquiry report is not supplied before passing the punishment order, the court will not automatically set aside the punishment order instead would direct production of the enquiry report and thereupon grant an opportunity to the delinquent to establish before the court what prejudice he suffered for non-supply of the enquiry report. 8. In those circumstances, I called for the enquiry report since the enquiry report was not annexed to the counter affidavit despite admitting the fact that the same had not been supplied to the petitioner. 9. After the enquiry report was produced, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that whereas the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner of the charge of interpolation, while passing the impugned order of punishment, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded on the basis, although without indicating any reason to differ from the opinion of the Enquiry Officer, that the petitioner is guilty of interpolation of the original record and that itself suggests that the Disciplinary Authority, without even reading the enquiry report has passed the punishment order and if the enquiry report was made available to the petitioner before the punishment order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner could highlight that he has been absolved by the Enquiry Officer of the principal charge of manipulation. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner, further, submitted that the Enquiry Officer totally misdirected himself while holding that the petitioner did not discharge his obligations as a Government employee for he has not disputed that the responsibility of the petitioner as Comparing Clerk was to compare whether the copy prepared is the correct reflection of the original. He submitted that in the event the enquiry report was given to him before the punishment order was passed he could also point out the same to the Disciplinary Authority. In other sense, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ultimate finding is failure to discharge governmental duties as entrusted upon the petitioner. He submitted that in the event the enquiry report was given to him before the punishment order was passed he could also point out the same to the Disciplinary Authority. In other sense, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ultimate finding is failure to discharge governmental duties as entrusted upon the petitioner. He submitted that nowhere any attempt has been made either in the enquiry report or in the punishment order of the Disciplinary Authority to show that by any customary rule or by statutory rule or by practice or usage the petitioner as a Comparing Clerk had any authority to make any comment in relation to any entry made in any original document placed before him after a copy or copies thereof has/have been prepared by the Typist. 11. 11. These submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are unassailable. I think the matter must be concluded thus. There being no duty cast upon the petitioner in discharge of his governmental duties that he would express his views in relation to any entry in the original record and his duty being confined to compare copies of the original with the original, there is no material on the record on the basis whereof a prudent person can opine that the petitioner has failed to discharge his governmental duties and accordingly, has failed to protect the Government. 12. As aforesaid, the prescribed form does not require the applicant of a certified copy to furnish any other particulars about him except his name and that having been dealt with first by the Deputy Collector the petitioner could not be blamed for comparing copies prepared of the original on the basis of such an application. The petitioner being admittedly not the custodian of the original record and there being a clear finding of fact that the petitioner was not responsible for the alleged interpolation, the petitioner could not he held to be guilty by a prudent person for having compared a copy prepared of the alleged interpolated original document. As such the conclusion would be that there being no materials on the record but on the basis of whims and caprices the Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty and the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of termination even without considering the enquiry report. 13. In those circumstances the writ petition is allowed. As such the conclusion would be that there being no materials on the record but on the basis of whims and caprices the Enquiry Officer proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty and the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of termination even without considering the enquiry report. 13. In those circumstances the writ petition is allowed. The charge-sheet the enquiry report and the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority, being annexure-1 of the writ petition are quashed. It is declared that there was no materials on the record on the basis whereof the petitioner could be held to be guilty. Accordingly, in terms of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code the petitioner is entitled to automatic reinstatement. The efforts made to hold the petitioner guilty having failed, and the materials as were brought on record, having suggested that the petitioner was not guilty of any of the charges as were levelled against him, it must be deemed that the petitioner has been exonerated of all the charges, as were levelled against him, and, accordingly, by reason of Rule 97 of the said Code the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances to which he was otherwise entitled to but for the order of dismissal. The State is directed, therefore, to forthwith but not later than one month from today issue an appropriate order giving a suitable posting to the petitioner and to release all arrear pay and allowances to the petitioner from the date of dismissal until the date the petitioner joins his post within three months from today. 14. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State.