Judgment Shree Chandrashekhar, J. 1. Seeking quashing of order dated 31.03.2005 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in B.S. Case No. 2 of 1994 whereby the petitioner's challenge to the order of discharge from service dated 24.02.1994 has been rejected, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner joined as TypistcumAssistant on 23.10.1979 and in the year 1986 he was promoted as StoreKeeper. The petitioner was served a chargememo dated 25/27.01.1994 on the allegation that while working in T.S.R.D.S. Central Stores during the month of September to November, 1993, he misappropriated medicines worth over Rs. 62,000/ by prefixing digit before the number entered into the requisition form and thereby, has inflated the figures in certain Materials Requisition Forms. It was further alleged that the petitioner faked the initials of one Mr. C. Pramanik in the Materials Requisition Forms and the ledger to avoid detection. The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation which he submitted on 28.01.1994 however, an enquiry was ordered against the petitioner into the charges contained in the chargesheet dated 25/27.01.1994. It is the case of the petitioner that during the enquiry the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The documents on which the management relied were not supplied to the petitioner. The entire enquiry was conducted and completed within two days and therefore, the entire enquiry was vitiated. The enquiry report was submitted on 09.02.1994 and an order of discharge from service was passed on 24.02.1994. The complainant/petitioner moved the Labour Court under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953. The learned Labour Court dismissed the case by order dated 31.03.2005 and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 stating that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. Justifying the impugned order dated 31.03.2005, it has been stated that this is not a case which requires interference by this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has confined his argument only to the question of sustainability of the order of discharge dated 24.02.1994 on the ground of violation of natural justice. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has confined his argument only to the question of sustainability of the order of discharge dated 24.02.1994 on the ground of violation of natural justice. Learned counsel has submitted that nonsupply of the documents on which the employer relied, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. He has further submitted that even a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner and this fact has not been disputed by Respondent No. 2 in the counteraffidavit filed in this Court. On these grounds, the learned counsel has contended that the impugned order dated 31.03.2005 is not sustainable in law as the order of discharge dated 24.02.1994 is liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of natural justice. Learned counsel has relied on judgments in “Central Bank of India Ltd. Vs. Prakash Chand Jain”, reported in AIR 1969 SC 983 and “Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors.”, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10 .” 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 has submitted that the entire procedure was explained to the petitioner and he had seen the documents on which the employer relied and therefore, no prejudice has been caused to him. He has further submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are based on appreciation of evidence on record and therefore, no interference is required by this Court in the present case. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has relied on a decision in “Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. Vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja”, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 31 . 7. In the writ petition, the petitioner has taken a specific stand in paragraph Nos. 13, 14 and 15 which is as under, 13. “That it is humbly stated that without supplying the documents, list of witnesses and the necessary papers as stated in the preceding paragraphs, the Enquiry Officer has proceeded with the enquiry in great haste on 03/02/1994 and 04/02/1994. 14. 13, 14 and 15 which is as under, 13. “That it is humbly stated that without supplying the documents, list of witnesses and the necessary papers as stated in the preceding paragraphs, the Enquiry Officer has proceeded with the enquiry in great haste on 03/02/1994 and 04/02/1994. 14. “That it is humbly stated that thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has completed its enquiry and submitted its report in which the report has been submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner has been proved which the petitioner has got information from the letter dated 14/02/1994 issued under the signature of Honorary Secretary and a proposal of discharging the petitioner from service of T.S.R.D.S. was given and he was advised to submit a reply to the proposed punishment from discharge of service. 15. “That it is humbly stated that the Enquiry Officer has not furnished the copy of enquiry report to the petitioner and as such, in absence of the enquiry report it was not possible for him to submit reply to the show cause against the proposed punishment of discharging from service which the petitioner has specifically demanded. Prior to giving the reply to the second show cause against the proposed punishment of discharging from service was served but the enquiry report was never served to him.” 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2, paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 are as under: 12. “That in reply to paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14 the learned Labour Court in Para 15 of the impugned order has categorically dealt with the averments and allegations made in the paragraphs under reply which can be summarized thus, (i) It has been held that from the perusal of the order sheet of the enquiry committee it appeared that the complainant was explained the procedure of the enquiry. (ii) The entire proceeding was shown to the complainant on each date when the enquiry was held. (iii) the documents on which the management relied were shown to the complainant and the complainant also crossexamined the management witnesses. (iv) The management witnesses were discharged when the complainant stated that he had no further question to be asked from the management witnesses. (v) The complainant examined himself and accordingly the Labour court came to the conclusion that the complainant was given sufficient opportunity and the principles of natural justice were followed. 13. (iv) The management witnesses were discharged when the complainant stated that he had no further question to be asked from the management witnesses. (v) The complainant examined himself and accordingly the Labour court came to the conclusion that the complainant was given sufficient opportunity and the principles of natural justice were followed. 13. That in view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned Labour Court and particularly the fact that when the enquiry report was submitted on 9th February, 1994 (Ext. F) and the Hony. Secretary of the Society wrote a letter to the complainant on 14th February, 1994 with a proposed punishment of discharge and invited the comments of the complainant, for the first time in reply by his letter of 19th February, 1994 he made grievances as alleged in paragraphs of the writ application referred to above, in Para 12 of this counteraffidavit. The answering respondent therefore, denies and disputes all the averments and allegations made in paragraphs 10 to 14 of the writ application referred to above.” 9. The learned Labour Court has dealt with this issue by holding as under, 15. “.....Admittedly the documents were shown to the complainant on which the management has relied. The complainant has also cross examined the management's witnesses. When the complainant has stated that he has no further question to be asked and then only the management witnesses were discharged. The complainant himself has been examined. I find and hold that sufficient opportunity was given to the complainant to defend himself in the Domestic Enquiry and the principles of natural justice were followed. The enquiry report is based on the evidence. The finding given on the basis of the evidence before the Domestic Enquiry is not supposed to be beyond all reasonable doubt but it is based on preponderance of probabilities. I find that the enquiry officer has considered the evidence and the report is correct. This decides issue no. (ii).” 10. I find that the charge against the petitioner is of misappropriation by fabricating certain Medicine Requisition Forms and thus, the case against the petitioner is mainly based on documentary evidence. Admittedly, those documents were shown to the petitioner. The petitioner crossexamined the witnesses and the witnesses were discharged only when the petitioner confirmed that he had no further question to ask. Admittedly, those documents were shown to the petitioner. The petitioner crossexamined the witnesses and the witnesses were discharged only when the petitioner confirmed that he had no further question to ask. Thus, it cannot be said that serious prejudice was caused to the petitioner and that the entire departmental proceeding was vitiated due to nonobservance of principles of natural justice. 11. In “State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan”, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1623 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, “In such matters it is difficult and inexpedient to lay down in general rules; whether or not the officer in question has had a reasonable opportunity must always depend on the facts in each case. The only general statement that can be safely made in this connection is that the departmental enquiries should observe rules of natural justice, and that if they are fairly and properly conducted the decisions reached by the enquiry officers on the merits are not open to be challenged on the ground that the procedure followed was not exactly in accordance with that which is observed in Courts of law.” 12. In “Union of India Vs. V.T.R. Varma”, reported in AIR 1957 SC 882 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, 10. “Stating it broadly and without intending it to be exhaustive it may be observed that rules of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies, that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of crossexamining the witnesses examined by that party, and that no material should be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity of explaining them. If these rules are satisfied, the enquiry is not open to attack on the ground that the procedure laid down in the Evidence Act for taking evidence was not strictly followed.” 13 .In “Jasodhar Misra Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.”, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 322 , when a contention was raised that some vital documents were not made available to the delinquent employee, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, “The evidence on which the principal charge viz. State of Bihar & Ors.”, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 322 , when a contention was raised that some vital documents were not made available to the delinquent employee, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held, “The evidence on which the principal charge viz. the second charge was based, consisted of two reports of the SDO and the khas mahal Tahsildar taken on record in the presence of the appellant and he was accorded full opportunity to meet the reports. The fact that certain other documents were found missing will not vitiate the proceeding. Therefore, the third contention is also without any force.” 14. Adverting to the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that nonsupply of enquiry report has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and on this ground also the order of discharge dated 24.02.1994 is liable to be quashed, I find that the enquiry was conducted and witnesses were examined in presence of the petitioner. The documents relied upon by the department were shown to the petitioner and the petitioner has been informed about the findings recorded during the enquiry. I further find that in his reply dated 19.02.1994, the petitioner has not made any grievance with respect to nonsupply of the enquiry report. Nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate any prejudice caused to the petitioner. 15. In “Manging Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors.”, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, “Whether infact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to take all the consequential benefits.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed, “the Court/Tribunal should not mechanically setaside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettable being at present. The courts should avoid resorting to shortcuts.” 16. The courts should avoid resorting to shortcuts.” 16. It has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments that if the enquiry report has not been made available to the delinquent employee, it would not ipsofacto vitiate the disciplinary proceeding as it would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and delinquent has to establish that real prejudice has been caused to him by not furnishing the enquiry report to him. 17. In “Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr. Vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja”, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 31 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under, 21. “From the ratio laid down in B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 it is explicitly clear that the doctrine of natural justice requires supply of a copy of the inquiry officer's report to the delinquent if such inquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority. It is also clear that nonsupply of report of the inquiry officer is in the breach of natural justice. But it is equally clear that failure to supply a report of the inquiry officer to the delinquent employee would not ipso facto result in the proceedings being declared null and void and the order of punishment non est and ineffective. It is for the delinquent employee to plead and prove that nonsupply of such report had caused prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice. If he is unable to satisfy the court on that point, the order of punishment cannot automatically be set aside.” 18. The evidence taken in the domestic enquiry has been dealt with by the learned Labour Court in detail. The charge against the petitioner has been proved by cogent evidence and the petitioner has not been able to elicit anything in his favour in the crossexamination of the witnesses. A finding has been recorded that the complainant/petitioner has not disputed the fact of interpolation on the Medicine Requisition Forms. On a consideration of the evidence brought on record during the enquiry, the learned Labour Court has held the order of discharge of petitioner from service unassailable. Thus, it cannot be said that there was no evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to establish any real prejudice caused to him in the departmental enquiry. On a consideration of the evidence brought on record during the enquiry, the learned Labour Court has held the order of discharge of petitioner from service unassailable. Thus, it cannot be said that there was no evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to establish any real prejudice caused to him in the departmental enquiry. I am also not inclined to accept the plea of the petitioner that the enquiry was conducted with undue haste and it was completed within two days and therefore, serious prejudice was caused to him. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner do not lend any support to the case as put forth on behalf of the petitioner. 19. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is required in this matter and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.