Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is a retired employee of Bihar School Examination Board (B.S.E.B.) and at the relevant time was holding the post of Section Officer. For certain acts of omission and commission with regard to holding of an examination for the year 1999, the Authorities in their wisdom decided to issue a charge-sheet against him and hold a departmental inquiry. The charge-sheet is contained in Annexure-4 to the Writ Application. The inquiry thereafter was also held, but since the inquiry report did not find the culpability of the petitioner to the extent where a major punishment could be imposed, the respondents decided to impose minor punishment which came to be issued on 2.11.2002. The order is contained in Annexure-7 and is under challenge in the present writ application. 3. The primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that serious prejudice has been caused to him by the couduct of the respondents because after initiating the departmental proceeding and holding inquiry for the set of charges he was not given a copy of the inquiry report to enable him to file his reply to the so-called show cause issued for imposition of minor punishment. According to him once the process of imposition of major punishment was embarked upon by the respondents, they should have followed the procedure established in this regard, given him a copy of the inquiry report and thereafter may be passed the order in question provided they were still not satisfied with the explanation which the petitioner might have had to offer. 4. Petitioner also brings to my notice the appellate order dated 11.9.2004 contained in Annexure-12. He draws my attention to such portions of the order where the appellate authority has extensively relied on the inquiry report for upholding the order of punishment which has been passed against the petitioner. This according to the petitioner is the clinching issue. Non-supply of the inquiry report, even though, the punishment is minor in nature vitiates the order of punishment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on two decisions in support of his submissions which are the cases of Upendra Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar & Others, 2006(1) PLJR 691 ; Surya Nath Pandey vs. The State of Bihar & Others 2005(1) PLJR 123 . 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on two decisions in support of his submissions which are the cases of Upendra Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar & Others, 2006(1) PLJR 691 ; Surya Nath Pandey vs. The State of Bihar & Others 2005(1) PLJR 123 . 6. Learned counsel for the respondents however, states that the petitioner in his show cause contained in Annexure-5 had accepted his guilt and that is enough for the respondents to pass an order of punishment which was any way minor in nature. According to him no prejudice as such has been caused to the petitioner by non-supply of the inquiry report and that by itself is good ground for not interfering with the order of punishment. He places reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Ramanuj Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Others, 2007 Suppl. PLJR 429. 7. The Court has perused the show cause of the petitioner contained in Annexure-5. On reading of the same it does not lead to a conclusion that the petitioner had accepted his guilt as such. He does accept that there were some aberrations in performance of the duties, but, whether such aberration could lead to conclusion of guilt is doubtful. Not only this, in view of the settled position on this score that the respondents had taken recourse to the process of imposition of major punishment by holding an inquiry based on charge-sheet, then they had a duty cast upon them to furnish a copy of the same to the petitioner. Non-furnishing of the copy of the inquiry report would be deemed to prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner as has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court way back in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar & Others, 1993(6) Judgment Today S.C. 1, as also in the case of Surya Nath Pandey (supra). 8. In the present case since the petitioner has already superannuated and in the given facts as well as law on the issue, the order of punishment cannot be sustained the order dated 2.11.2002 contained in Annexure-7 as well as the order dated 11.9.2004 contained in Annexure-12 stand quashed. 9. The writ application is allowed accordingly. 10. 8. In the present case since the petitioner has already superannuated and in the given facts as well as law on the issue, the order of punishment cannot be sustained the order dated 2.11.2002 contained in Annexure-7 as well as the order dated 11.9.2004 contained in Annexure-12 stand quashed. 9. The writ application is allowed accordingly. 10. Needless to say that the petitioner would be entitled to his pension and other retiral dues as if the order of punishment did not exist against him.