Judgment : This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Order dated 2-5-2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D.No.70 of 2005 and to quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. Petitioner is the Management. Respondent No.2 is the workman. It appears, 2nd respondent, while working as an Operator, was dismissed from service by an Order dated 24-3-2005. Aggrieved by the same, he raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.70 of 2005 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The Labour Court while examining the validity of the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner-Management, by an Order dated 2-5-2007, gave a finding that the domestic enquiry was vitiated rendering it invalid, mainly on the ground that before the 2nd respondent-workman could submit his explanation to the charge sheet, Enquiry Officer was appointed, which is not permissible under law. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Management that the 2nd respondent was issued with two charge sheets. For the first charge sheet dated 10-4-2004, which relates to absenteeism, 2nd respondent submitted his explanation on 15-4-2004. Further, a second charge sheet was issued on 15-5-2004 for insubordination and using abusive language against the superiors and the same was acknowledged by the 2nd respondent on 22-5-2004 and submitted his explanation on 29-5-2004. In the meanwhile, on 26-5-2004, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appointment of the Enquiry Officer either before or after receipt of the explanation would not make any difference in a domestic enquiry like this, particularly, in a case where there are two separate charge sheets issued and for the first charge sheet, 2nd respondent had already submitted his explanation on 15-4-2004. The Certified Standing Orders are also silent in this regard. Further, this was not the case of the 2nd respondent at any point of time including in the claim petition filed before the Labour Court. The appointment of an Enquiry Officer, should always succeed the submission of explanation is not a mandatory rule, but it is only advisory in its nature. This being purely procedural in nature, unless and until some prejudice is caused to the interest of the 2nd respondent, the Labour Court ought not to have held that the enquiry conducted by the Management was vitiated rendering it invalid. This being purely procedural in nature, unless and until some prejudice is caused to the interest of the 2nd respondent, the Labour Court ought not to have held that the enquiry conducted by the Management was vitiated rendering it invalid. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported in FIRESTONE TYRE AND RUBBER CO. v. WORKMEN AIR 1968 SC 236 , SUPERINTENDENT, KALIYAR ESTATE v. O. KURIAKKO 1971 (1) LLJ 83 (Kerala), MOTOR INDUSTRIES CO.LTD. v. D.ADINARAYANAPPA 1978 (1) LLJ 443 and MANAGEMENT OF GLAXO INDIA LTD., MADRAS v. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, GUNTUR 1993 (1) LLJ 626. Whereas, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-workman strenuously contended that appointment of an Enquiry Officer on 26-5-2004 before the explanation to the second charge sheet dated 15- 52004 was submitted shows the bias attitude of the disciplinary authority and would amount to prejudging the charge that the 2nd respondent is liable to be tried in a domestic enquiry and any explanation submitted by the 2nd respondent would not be satisfactory. Therefore, the Labour Court rightly found that the appointment of an Enquiry Officer before submission of the explanation by the 2nd respondent-employee is bad in law. From the above pleadings and contentions, the only question that falls for consideration, in this Writ Petition, is whether a domestic enquiry is said to be vitiated and rendered invalid merely because the Enquiry Officer was appointed before submitting an explanation to the charge sheet by the delinquent Officer ? In FIRESTONE TYRE AND RUBBER CO. (1 supra) the Apex Court held as under: "6. The Company now contends that none of these grounds has any validity. It has tried to meet each of the grounds and in our opinion successfully. We shall take these grounds one by one and indicate the submissions which in our opinion must be allowed to prevail. As regards ground No. (a) it is clear to us that, although it may he desirable to call for such an explanation before serving a charge-sheet there is no principle which compels such a course. The calling for an explanation can only be with a view to making an enquiry unnecessary, where the explanation is good but in many cases it would be open to the criticism that the defence of the workman was being fished out. The calling for an explanation can only be with a view to making an enquiry unnecessary, where the explanation is good but in many cases it would be open to the criticism that the defence of the workman was being fished out. If after a preliminary enquiry there is prima facie reason to think that the workman was at fault, a charge-sheet setting out the details of the allegations and the likely evidence, may be issued without offending against any principle of justice and fair play. This is what was done here and we do not think that there was any disadvantage to the workman. The management has pointed out that even on fact the view is not correct. They have referred to the workman's letter dated May 30, 1963 in which he reiterated that he was supplied a shorter number of tyres than that given in the invoices and to his statement before Mr. Coyajee that he would state his case fully. In these circumstances, it is hardly possible to say that the workman was at a disadvantage in any way." This decision has no bearing on the issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition. In the said case, it was held that although in a domestic enquiry, it may be desirable to call for an explanation before serving a charge sheet on a delinquent workman, there is no principle which compels such a course. The calling for explanation can only be with a view to making an enquiry unnecessary, where the explanation is good, but in many cases, it would be open to the criticism that the defence of the workman was being fished out. If after a preliminary enquiry, there is prima facie reason to think that the workman was at fault, a charge sheet setting out the details of allegations and the likely evidence, may be issued without offending against any principle of justice and fair play. In that case, the Court was dealing with a situation of calling for explanation at the preliminary enquiry stage; therefore, it has no relevance to the facts of this case. In SUPERINTENDENT, KALIYAR ESTATE v. O. KURIAKKO (2 supra) while relying upon the said decision in FIRESTONE TYRE AND RUBBER CO. In that case, the Court was dealing with a situation of calling for explanation at the preliminary enquiry stage; therefore, it has no relevance to the facts of this case. In SUPERINTENDENT, KALIYAR ESTATE v. O. KURIAKKO (2 supra) while relying upon the said decision in FIRESTONE TYRE AND RUBBER CO. case (1 supra), the Kerala High Court held that there is no substance in saying that no opportunity was given to the worker to submit his explanation as to why action should not be taken against him before the enquiry was started. There is no statutory provision that a delinquent worker should be given an opportunity to explain why an enquiry in respect of the charge should not be conducted against him. All he is entitled to have is that he should be given sufficient notice of the charges against him and of the allegations on which the charges are based and a fair and reasonable opportunity to meet the charges. In this case also, offering opportunity and asking explanation before conducting a preliminary enquiry had come up for consideration. Therefore, this decision has also no relevance to the facts of this case. In MOTOR INDUSTRIES CO.LTD. v. D.ADINARAYANAPPA (3 supra), the Karnataka High Court held that it is not a necessary requirement of principle of natural justice that before holding an enquiry, an earlier opportunity of furnishing reply to the charges should be given to the delinquent employee. This case appears to be similar to the case on hand. The first charge sheet was issued and explanation was called for and when a second charge sheet was issued, the workman therein was also informed that an enquiry would be held by the Enquiry Officer for the said charge also. But, no explanation was called for insofar as the second charge is concerned. While examining this issue, it was held, as stated above, that informing the delinquent employee of the specific charges levelled against him in writing and giving him an opportunity to defend himself in enquiry fulfils the requirement of principles of natural justice, but it is not a necessary requirement of principle of natural justice that before holding an enquiry, an earlier opportunity of furnishing reply to the charges should be given to a delinquent employee. In MANAGEMENT OF GLAXO INDIA LTD case (4 supra), it was held that no opportunity need be given to a delinquent employee to call for explanation before serving the charge sheet and it is not mandatory for giving an opportunity to delinquent to explain as to why enquiry should not be conducted against him. This judgment also has no application to the facts of this case. Thus, the only decision, which is in favour of the petitioner, is the Judgment reported in MOTOR INDUSTRIES CO.LTD. v. D.ADINARAYANAPPA (3 supra). On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent relied upon the Judgment reported in STATE OF PUNJAB v. V.K. KHANNA AIR 2001 SC 343 wherein it was held that it is well settled in service jurisprudence that the authority has to apply its mind upon receipt of reply to the charge-sheet or show cause, as the case may be, as to whether a further inquiry is called for. In the event upon deliberations and due considerations it is in the affirmative, the inquiry follows, but not otherwise. Thus, where even before reply was filed by the delinquent-Chief Secretary to the charge sheet issued against him, the Chief Minister made an announcement appointing an Enquiry Officer to go into the charges, thus indicating the mindset that the inquiry shall proceed irrespective of the reply, it cannot be said that the attitude of the authorities towards the delinquent was free and fair. In that case, a Writ Petition was directly filed before Punjab and Haryana High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and such a plea was made as to prejudice, mala fides etc., and proved. Under such circumstances, the Apex Court ruled as such. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent further relied upon a Judgment of the Apex Court in CH.APPALA REDDY v. EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LTD. 2005(3) ALD 525 (DB) wherein, a Division Bench of this Court, following the Judgment in V.K. KHANNA's case (5 supra) held that appointment of an Enquiry Officer even before a show cause notice or charge sheet was served upon an employee was held to be bad in law and is not known to service jurisprudence. In such an event, the element of bias exists. In such an event, the element of bias exists. The order passed by the Tribunal is based on the Judgment reported in B.S. NAMBIAR, "THARANGAM" v. UNION OF INDIA 1992(1) AISLJ 44 wherein an Enquiry Officer was appointed before receipt of defence statement. The respondent's plea was that there was no irregularity in doing so. It was held that the spirit of rule is that Enquiry Officer should be appointed after consideration of defence. In that case, the Regulations themselves contemplated that on receipt of written statement of the Officer or if no statement is received within the time specified, the enquiry may be held by the disciplinary authority itself or if it thinks it necessary so to do appoint under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 6, an inquiring authority for the purpose, provided that it may not be necessary to hold an inquiry in respect of the articles of charges admitted by the Officer in his written statement, but it shall be necessary to record its finding on each such charge. Under those circumstances, while examining the case before it, the Kerala High Court held that the spirit of the rule is not that the Enquiry Officer should be appointed after consideration of the defence. In the case on hand, firstly, there was no specific plea taken by the 2nd respondent-workman at any point of time including in the pleadings in the claim statement filed under Section 2-A(2) of the Act before the Labour Court. Therefore, none of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, in this regard, are applicable to the facts of the present case. In B.S. NAMBIAR's case (7 supra) there was a rule in that regard, as noticed above. In V.K. KHANNA's case (5 supra) the very Writ Petition was filed complaining as to prejudice, bias, malice etc. Therefore, though announcement of Enquiry Officer even before receipt of reply of the delinquent employee to the charge sheet was said to be shown bias by the disciplinary authority, such a broad principle cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. Even otherwise, a careful examination of the charge sheets 1 and 2, which read as under: "1. Therefore, though announcement of Enquiry Officer even before receipt of reply of the delinquent employee to the charge sheet was said to be shown bias by the disciplinary authority, such a broad principle cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. Even otherwise, a careful examination of the charge sheets 1 and 2, which read as under: "1. Charge sheet dated 10-4-2004: That it has been observed from the time office records that the charge sheeted employee, absented from duties unauthorizedly from 03.04.04 till the date of this charge sheet without prior sanction and without applying leave and that the charge sheeted employee was absent to his duties without prior sanction of leave on 3 days in January 04, 5 days in February 04 and 14 days in March,04 totalling for 22 days in these three months. It is also alleged that the charge sheeted employee previously remained absent and warned for similar misconduct vide letter dated 25-11-03, 16-12-03 and 21-01-04, but no sign of improvement has been observed in his attendance. 2. Charge sheet dated 15.5.04: That on 15.05.04 in B Shift the charge sheeted employee has shouted back when the Dy.General Manager (Production) on his visit to Paint Line at about 5.00 p.m. has enquired as to why the charge sheeted employee is remaining unauthorizedly absent causing disruption to work in process and also questioned the DGM's right when he has asked the CSE to leave the work premises to get cooled down." would indicate that this is a case where an enquiry would be necessary to be conducted, whether the explanation was submitted by the delinquent Officer or not to the charge sheets issued to him. The charges are grave in nature and no disciplinary authority would have closed the enquiry on the explanation furnished by the 2nd respondent. Further, it is very interesting to notice, a perusal of the explanation submitted by the workman would indicate that it is not a case where the workman has admitted the charge or explained them, except saying that the allegations are all false, frivolous, fabricated and mere issuing a bare and incomplete charge memo like the one that was issued is not be-in-all or an end-in-all and in all fairness does not amount to compliance of principles of natural justice, which is a hallmark or the sheet-anchor in contemplating the disciplinary proceedings against an employee. This all would go to show that no prudent employer would have accepted such an explanation and let-off the delinquent Officer. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the disciplinary authority would be satisfied by the explanation given by the workman and, therefore, appointing an Enquiry Officer before explanation of the workman reached the disciplinary authority amounted to bias or malice; particularly, prejudice or bias cannot be allowed to be raised, at this stage of the matter, on such frivolous procedural irregularities. It may be a procedural irregularity, even if there is any such rule in this regard, but cannot be an illegality. Under such circumstances, as is decided in MOTOR INDUSTRIES CO.LTD case (3 supra) it is not a necessary requirement of principles of natural justice that before holding an enquiry, an earlier opportunity of furnishing reply to the charges should be given to the delinquent employee. In this case, both the learned counsel for the parties have fairly submitted that the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the case of the 2nd respondent are silent in this regard. Further, no such plea was raised by the 2nd respondent specifically in his claim petition as to causing any prejudice as to the appointment of an Enquiry Officer before the reply submitted by him to the charge sheet. Further, the respondent-workman participated in the proceedings and no other lapses have been pointed out to show that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management was vitiated rendering it invalid. For every procedural lapse, the Labour Court cannot declare the domestic enquiry conducted by the Management as vitiated rendering it invalid; particularly in a case of bias, malice, prejudice etc., there must be a plea and the prejudice must result in causing bias etc. In this case, there was no such plea and no discussion. Assuming that there is any such bias in appointing an Enquiry Officer before explanation to the charge sheet is filed, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it did not result in any prejudice or bias, as noticed above, particularly when there is a finding recorded that all opportunity was given to the respondent-workman and the explanation for the first charge sheet was received and the explanation offered as to second charge-sheet could not have allowed the authority to close the enquiry against the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The enquiry held by the Management is declared as valid. The Labour Court shall proceed with the matter on merits and decide the same finally, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.