Judgment :- The petitioner was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police, Manalmedu, Nagapattinam District. The petitioner filed O.A. No. 2795 of 1998 seeking to challenge the orders of the respondent by which he was issued with the punishment of reprimand. The Tribunal granted interim stay on the ground that the disciplinary authority had passed final orders imposing the punishment of reprimand without furnishing the copy of the enquiry report and calling for explanation from the petitioner. The Tribunal granted interim stay on the ground raised by the petitioner in the Original Application that non-furnishing of enquiry report is against the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, but the petitioner never stated what is the Supreme Court decision he was referring to. Therefore, the Tribunal was persuaded to grant an interim order, which it was doing for all these years. Though an application was filed by the respondents to vacate the interim order in M.A. No. 624 of 1998, for the reasons best known to the Tribunal, the application was never taken up for disposal. On notice from the Tribunal, the second respondent has filed reply affidavit on 14.05.1998. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P. No. 37583 of 2006. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised two grounds in attacking the impugned orders namely (i) the disciplinary authority, while accepting the report of the enquiry officer, did not give any reason, which was also erroneously not considered by the appellate authority before imposing the punishment and (ii) the petitioner was not given the copy of the enquiry report. Both the grounds do not stand scrutiny of law. The Honourable Supreme Court, in the decision reported in (National Fertilizers Ltd., and another vs. P.K. Khanna) (2005) 7 SCC 597 had stated that the disciplinary authorities are required to give reasons only when they disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer and not when they agree with the findings. 3. With reference to the second ground raised by the petitioner. It must be stated that the Honourable Supreme Court, in the decision rendered in (Haryana Financial Corporation and another vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja) (2008) 9 scc 31 held that non-furnishing of enquiry report to the delinquent officer will not vitiate the penalty order unless the delinquent officer prove prejudice. 3. With reference to the second ground raised by the petitioner. It must be stated that the Honourable Supreme Court, in the decision rendered in (Haryana Financial Corporation and another vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja) (2008) 9 scc 31 held that non-furnishing of enquiry report to the delinquent officer will not vitiate the penalty order unless the delinquent officer prove prejudice. In the present case, the petitioner has filed an appeal to the first respondent/appellate authority, which was also rejected on 11.01.1997. In the appeal memo, there is no single ground raised by the petitioner that he was prejudiced owing to non-furnishing of the enquiry report. Moreover, in the punishment order itself, the contents of the enquiry officers report were furnished. 4. Before the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in (Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan) (1991) 1 SCC 588 a circular issued by the Director General of Police whereunder a direction was given that even in case of a punishment granted under Rule 3 (a), the enquiry report must be given in advance and after getting explanation from the charge sheeted officer, punishment must be imposed. Since the decision of Mohd Ramzah Khans case came into force prospectively with effect from 110. 1990, by a subsequent proceedings dated 20.10.1990, the requirement to furnish the enquiry report was dispensed with, as it did not form part of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, the Tribunal had granted an interim stay on the basis of the previous circular, oblivious of the fact that the said Circular of the Director General of Police was cancelled with effect from 20.10.1990. Therefore, both the grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petition fails. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.