ORDER R. Kantha Rao, J. 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the Award in I.D. No. 14 of 1996 dated 09.02.1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur and consequently to direct the respondent No. 2 to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service. 2. After filing of the writ petition, S.Md. Ghouse, the petitioner died and his legal representatives came on record and they have been prosecuting the present writ petition. 3. The brief facts necessary for considering the writ petition may be stated as follows: 4. The petitioner was a driver in the respondents' Corporation. A disciplinary enquiry was held against him on the charge of attempt to commit theft of four aluminum sheets belonging to respondents' Corporation. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of two charges viz. attempting to commit theft of four aluminum sheets and not stopping the bus when asked by the security guard who noticed four aluminum sheets on the top of the bus. The disciplinary authority on receiving the enquiry report imposed the punishment of removal from service against the petitioner. Eight witnesses have been examined on behalf of the Corporation and the enquiry officer upon considering their evidence which was subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner held that the two charges have been proved against the petitioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. In the present writ petition it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that after receiving the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority before inflicting the punishment on the petitioner had not furnished copy of the enquiry report to him and therefore, the petitioner was prevented to offer proper explanation to the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer and therefore, the enquiry report as well as the final order passed by the disciplinary authority basing on the said report removing him from service are vitiated. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that if really the petitioner attempted to commit theft, a criminal case would have been booked against the petitioner, but there is no criminal case as such filed against the petitioner and therefore, the enquiry officer ought not to have believed the allegation of committing theft. 7. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that if really the petitioner attempted to commit theft, a criminal case would have been booked against the petitioner, but there is no criminal case as such filed against the petitioner and therefore, the enquiry officer ought not to have believed the allegation of committing theft. 7. The security guard who was examined as a witness before the enquiry officer stated in his evidence that in the first instance he allowed the bus to go out of the main gate but on noticing the aluminum sheets on the top of the bus, he signaled the driver to stop the bus, but he did not stop the bus, proceeded further and stopped the same on the platform. The evidence of the security guard as well as another witness examined on behalf of the Corporation revealed before the enquiry officer that when the driver was summoned by the officials of the respondents' Corporation through the conductor, the driver returned back but threw away the aluminum sheets into the bushes. It is basing on the aforesaid evidence and other material, the enquiry officer thoroughly convinced that the charges leveled against the petitioner have been duly proved. 8. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied on M.P. State Electricity Board v. Smt. Jarina Bee 2003 AIR SCW 3380 wherein the Supreme Court held that when the enquiry report was not furnished to the delinquent employee against whom the enquiry was held on charge of theft, the enquiry is found to be not in accordance with principles of natural justice and it is liable to be set aside and the petitioner can be reinstated into service. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied on Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. v. Shambbu Nath Mukherjee (1984) 2 SCALE 586 wherein it was held that the appellant was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the course of enquiry, the enquiry and the consequential order of removing him from service are vitiated. The learned counsel also relied on some other judgments which lay down the same principle. 10. In the instant case, the issue of non-furnishing of the enquiry report before passing final order has been raised for the first time in the writ petition. The learned counsel also relied on some other judgments which lay down the same principle. 10. In the instant case, the issue of non-furnishing of the enquiry report before passing final order has been raised for the first time in the writ petition. The petitioner filed an appeal against the removal order, the appeal was dismissed, thereafter he preferred a revision and the revision was also dismissed. He raised I.D. No. 14 of 1996. At no point of time the petitioner had raised the issue of non-furnishing of enquiry report to him by the disciplinary authority. All the authorities as well as the Industrial Tribunal have recorded a categorical finding that the charges leveled against the petitioner have been duly proved. The findings recorded have been based on unimpeachable evidence. The defence version of the petitioner appears to be that somebody placed aluminum sheets on the top of the bus and he was not aware of the aluminum sheets. If that is so, he would have stopped the bus when the security guard at the main gate wanted to check the bus. He drove the bus away to the platform and only returned back when the conductor informed him that the authorities directed the petitioner-driver of the bus to bring back the bus. The evidence before the enquiry officer indicated that the aluminum sheets were thrown away into the bushes and they were recovered from the bushes. Therefore, the evidence in the course of the disciplinary proceedings clinchingly established the commission of theft by the petitioner and therefore he was found guilty of the said charges by all the authorities. It is not always necessary that when on the allegation of attempt to commit theft against the petitioner the disciplinary enquiry is initiated, criminal proceedings have also to be initiated against him. The petitioner can as well be removed from service basing on the departmental enquiry against him even though no criminal case is filed against him. 11. In this context, it would be relevant to refer to the judgments relied on by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation. In Union of India and Others v. Bishamber Das Dogra (2009) SCC 102 a disciplinary enquiry was held against security guard in Central Industrial Security Force who remained absent from duty without justification or leave for more than five times in less than six years of service. In Union of India and Others v. Bishamber Das Dogra (2009) SCC 102 a disciplinary enquiry was held against security guard in Central Industrial Security Force who remained absent from duty without justification or leave for more than five times in less than six years of service. After the enquiry, punishment of removal from service was inflicted on him. He also raised the question that he was not furnished with the copy of enquiry report, the Supreme Court held that the issue raised by the employee has to be examined on the touchstone of doctrine of prejudice and the employee has to establish that prejudice has been caused by non-furnishing of enquiry report. The Supreme Court found that at no stage before the authorities the respondent employee contended that non-furnishing of enquiry report caused prejudice to him but raised the said issue for the first time before this Court and therefore, the High Court should not have interfered with the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority on technicalities. In Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M.G. Vittal Rao 2012(2) SCC 442 the Supreme Court took the view that in case of misconduct of grave nature like corruption or theft, no punishment other than dismissal is appropriate. The Supreme Court held that standard of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt while in domestic enquiry the proof is one of preponderance of probabilities. The Supreme Court further held that once the employer lost confidence in the employee and the bona fide loss of confidence is affirmed, reinstatement cannot be directed. 12. Turning to the facts of the present case, eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the Corporation which were cross examined by the petitioner during the course of departmental enquiry. The petitioner is not able to show that any prejudice had really occasioned to him on account of the non-furnishing of enquiry report before calling for his explanation about the proposed punishment. He also did not raise the issue of non-furnishing of copy of the enquiry report before any of the authorities in the course of disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, even if the contention that the disciplinary authority failed to furnish the enquiry report to the petitioner, it would not ipso facto result in proceedings being declared null and void. The punishment cannot be said to be non-est or unsustainable. Therefore, even if the contention that the disciplinary authority failed to furnish the enquiry report to the petitioner, it would not ipso facto result in proceedings being declared null and void. The punishment cannot be said to be non-est or unsustainable. In this case, the petitioner failed to establish that non-furnishing of the enquiry report resulted in real prejudice and miscarriage of justice to him. Therefore, there are no valid grounds to set aside the removal order passed against the petitioner. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this writ petition shall stand closed.