R.M. DOSHIT, CJ.:–This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by one Mohan Lal Das, a retired judicial officer, to challenge the Resolution dated 27th October 1986 passed by the High Court to impose a punishment of withholding of three increments with future effect upon the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has appeared in person. 3. It appears that the petitioner, then an Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh was, under order dated 28th January 1981, placed under suspension for the acts of commission and omission unbecoming of a judicial officer. For the alleged acts not befitting a judicial officer, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. As many as nine charges were framed against the petitioner, all amounting to unbecoming conduct, absence from service, etc. 4. After due inquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his reported on 7th December 1985. According to the said report, only three of the charges were partially proved. For the charges proved against the petitioner, under Resolution dated 27th October 1986, the petitioner was visited with above referred punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The said order is challenged in the present petition filed in 2006 i.e. after a delay of 20 years. 5. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad & Ors Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors { (1993) 4 SCC 727 }. He has submitted that it is duty of the disciplinary authority to supply copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent. Failure to supply the enquiry report is fatal and vitiates the disciplinary proceeding. He has further submitted that the disciplinary proceeding was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner had been harassed and was targeted for he belongs to a scheduled caste. 6. We may note here that according to then prevalent law, the disciplinary authority was not obliged to supply the report of enquiry officer to the delinquent. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Ramzan Khan { (1991) 1 SCC 588 } did make it mandatory to supply/furnish the enquiry report to the delinquent. However, the said judgment was made prospective in its application. The said judgment has again been distinguished and explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred matter of B. Karunakar. Ramzan Khan { (1991) 1 SCC 588 } did make it mandatory to supply/furnish the enquiry report to the delinquent. However, the said judgment was made prospective in its application. The said judgment has again been distinguished and explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred matter of B. Karunakar. The Hon’ble Court has held that even in case of failure to furnish enquiry report unless the prejudice is caused to the delinquent, the same shall not be fatal. 7. In the present case, the petitioner has not made out a case of prejudice for want of report of the enquiry officer. The allegation of mala fide is not supported by the necessary pleadings. In absence of the specific pleadings and concerned parties, such a contention cannot be countenanced. Although the petition has been filed 20 years after the date of cause of action, the petitioner has not explained the delay. In absence of any explanation for the aforesaid undue delay, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the principles of delay, laches and acquiescence also. 8. The petition is devoid of any merit. Petition is dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs.