Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the proceedings of the departmental enquiry held against their predecessor S. B. Dixit, who, at the relevant point of time, was serving on the post of officiating Branch Manager in the State Bank, the order passed by the disciplinary authority Annexure-P/3 dated 30/1/1997, the order of the appellate authority which was communicated to the petitioner on 30th August, 1997 and the order passed in review Annexure-P/7 dated 22/6/1998. ( 2. ) THE original petitioner is S. B. Dixit who passed away during the pendency of this petition and the present petitioners are his L. Rs. For convenence herein this petition where the petitioner is mentioned, it would mean s. B. Dixit, the original petitioner. ( 3. ) SEVERAL charges were framed against the petitioner in regard to temporary embezzlements of the amount which was not deposited by him in the Bank when he was serving on the post of Branch Manager. On going through charge sheet, it is gathered that one Shri Hardeo Singh handed over a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner on 24/6/1992 after banking hours for opening a Savings Bank Account in his name. The petitioner handed over a duly filled in pass book to him. However, the petitioner did not deposit the said amount in the Bank on the next day i. e. 25/6/1992 for credit to the depositors account. The amount was ultimately deposited by the petitioner on 2/11/1992 i. e. near about five months thereafter. In the meantime on 13/7/1992, Shri Hardeo Singh withdrew Rs. 19,000/- from his Savings Bank Account opened on 24/25-6-1992 which resulted into overdraft in the said account. Another charge which was framed against the petitioner was that on 20/7/1992 he was given Rs. 20,030/- by the Saving Bank Acount holder of Account No. 10138 for depositing the said amount in the account. The petitioner instead of depositing the said amount in the Sank on the same date, deposited it on 4/3/1993 i. e. after a lapse of about seven months. Certain other charges in regard to embezzlements are also framed against the petitioner. The details of charges are mentioned in Annexure-P/1. ( 4. The petitioner instead of depositing the said amount in the Sank on the same date, deposited it on 4/3/1993 i. e. after a lapse of about seven months. Certain other charges in regard to embezzlements are also framed against the petitioner. The details of charges are mentioned in Annexure-P/1. ( 4. ) THE petitioner refuted the charges, as a result of which departmental enquiry was initiated against him in which all the charges were found to be proved and the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 30/1/1997 (Annexure-P/3 ). ( 5. ) THE order of punishment was assailed by delinquent by filing a departmental appeal which was also dismissed and the result was communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-P/5 dated 30th August, 1997. The petitioner further assailed the said order by filing review petition which was also dismissed and the order was communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-P/7 dated 22/6/1998. ( 6. ) THE contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner specifically requested to the Enquiry Officer to supply the copies of the preliminary enquiry report but the same was not delivered to him, as a result of which it caused prejudice to the petitioner and, thus, the departmental enquiry is vitiated. It has been further contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that one S. L. Gupta, was examined as departmental witness but his examination was deferred and thereafter when he was again examined no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the petitioner. On merit, it has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the working system of the State Bank is that if an amount to deposit is received by the Branch Manager, the same is to be entrusted to the Cashier and the Cashier also signs the voucher. There is signature of the Cashier on the same voucher and if that is the position, the Cashier S. L Kori is equally responsible and this position has been ignored by the department. It has been further contended by learned Counsel that after looking to the overall assessment of the departmental enquiry one cannot say that the charges are proved beyond the doubt and if that is the position, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement. ( 7. It has been further contended by learned Counsel that after looking to the overall assessment of the departmental enquiry one cannot say that the charges are proved beyond the doubt and if that is the position, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement. ( 7. ) SHRI Sujoy Paul, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the preliminary enquiry report is nothing but is only a document by which an authority is required to form an opinion that whether any departmental enquriy is required to be initiated against the delinquent or nor. Thus, if the report of the preliminary enquiry was not supplied to the petitioner it cannot be said that the departmental enquiry is vitiated. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Vijay Kumar Nigam v. State of M. P. and Ors. AIR1997 SC 1358 , 1996 (8 ) SCALE591 , (1996 )11 SCC599 , [1996 ]supp8 SCR544 , Learned Counsel for the respondents by placing the decision of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. v. P. C. Kakkar AIR2003 SC 1571 , [2003 (96 )FLR1067 ], JT2003 (2 )SC 78 , (2003 )II LLJ181 SC , 2003 (2 )SCALE42 , (2003 )4 SCC364 , [2003 ]1 SCR1034 , 2003 (2 )SLJ65 (SC ), (2003 )1 UPLBEC840 , has submitted that the scope of judicial review awarding of lesser punishment to a co-delinquent cannot be made a ground for judicial interference with the quantum of punishment, It has been further contended by learned Counsel that on account of Cataract operation of departmental witness, his examination was deferred and when the deformity of said witness was cured he was cross-examined by the delinquent and if that is the position, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. On merit, it has been contended by learned Counsel that the charges in regard to embezzlements are duly proved and the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the reviewing authority have taken much pains in appreciating, marshaling and assessing the evidence came to the conclusion that the charges are duly proved. ( 8. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 9. ( 8. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 9. ) TRUE, the report of preliminary enquiry, though the petitioner demanded, was not supplied to him but the question is that whether non-supply of it had caused any prejudice to the petitioner or not. The matter would have been different if the preliminary enquiry would have relied in the departmental enquiry and in that situation the nature of the report of preliminary enquriy would be a document and copy of which was required to be supplied to the petitioner. Since the preliminary enquiry has not at all been taken into consideration for inflicting the punishment, I am of the view that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner if the copy thereof was not supplied to him. Apart from this, the report of preliminary enquiry is only a document by which an authority is to form an opinion that whether any departmental enquiry is required to be initiated or not. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that even if the copy of report of the preliminary enquiry was not supplied to the petitioner, no prejudice is caused to him. In that regard the decision of Vijay Kumar Nigam (supra) is quite relevant. There is no substance in the argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner that in his defence the petitioner requested the Enquiry Officer to summon the person who wrote the preliminary enquiry report but the said request was refused. The decision of the Supreme Court State of U. P. v. C. S. Sharma AIR1968 SC 158 , 1968 Lablc190 , (1969 )I LLJ509 SC , [1967 ]3 SCR848 , has been cited. Since the preliminary enquiry report has not been made pivot in order to inflict the punishment, therefore, if the request to call the person who wrote the preliminary enquiry report, was refused, according to me no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. The decision of C. S. Sharma (supra) is tangentially off the point. ( 10. ) SO far as opportunity to cross-examination the departmental witness S. L. Gupta is concerned, I have seen the deposition sheet of said witness. The decision of C. S. Sharma (supra) is tangentially off the point. ( 10. ) SO far as opportunity to cross-examination the departmental witness S. L. Gupta is concerned, I have seen the deposition sheet of said witness. True at one point of time, the evidence of said witness was deferred but it is equally true that on account of Cataract operation he was unable to read the document for this reason his evidence was deferred. Later on, he appeared and was cross-examined. Hence, it cannot be said that any prejudice is caused to the petitioner. ( 11. ) THERE is no substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that Ex. P/94 and P/95 were produced all of sudden, during the cross-examination before the Enquiry Officer and, therefore, since the copies thereof were not supplied to the delinquent, hence the proceedings of departmental enquiry are liable to be quashed. It be seen that these documents were admitted by the delinquent and if that is the position, I am of the view that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Apart from this, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not point out that how and in what manner any prejudice is caused, if these documents were taken on record by the Enquiry Officer. ( 12. ) ON going through the reasonings assigned by the disciplinary authority appellate authority and reviewing authority, it is gathered that after marshaling the evidence in detail, it has been held by these authorities that the charges which were leveled against the petitioner are duly proved. The petitioner was serving on the post of Branch Manager in the Bank and it is expected being an officer of the Bank that he should not have embezzled the amount. True, the amount was later on deposited by the petitioner, but it would not dilute his act of misconduct. Looking to the limited scope of the judicial review, I am declined to interfere in the quantum of punishment. ( 13. ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any substance in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.