Judgment : Per D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in writ petition bearing W.P.(L) No. 222 of 2009 vide order dated 2nd February, 2009. The writ petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent was working as a Senior Time-Keeper in the year 1984 who has shown the presence of one Sri Yudhisthir Bauri, a Miner Loader for the period running from 2nd April, 1984 to 10th April, 1984 as well as on 16th April, 1984 in the Attendance Register to be maintained by the respondent, whereas, on checking it was found that the said worker was absent from the duty and he did not go underground to perform his job. Again it has been pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that as per Munshi's report the said workman had not gone to underground, but, his presence was shown and he got the wages. Therefore, chargesheet was issued upon the workman in the month of September/November, 1984. An inquiry was conducted and inquiry report was given on 9th October, 1986 and ultimately the workman was dismissed on 21st April, 1993 for which a Reference Case no. 23 of 1999 was instituted under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal No.1 at Dhanbad. It has further been submitted by counsel for the appellant that inquiry was held legally by the order of the Tribunal as stated in Paragraph no. 5 of the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal No.1 dated 14th July, 2008. Now, the question before the Tribunal was about the quantum of punishment. It has further been submitted that the punishment inflicted upon the respondent-workman cannot be said to be shockingly or disproportionate nor the same was unreasonably excessive. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in (2008) 9 SCC page 31 especially at paragraph nos. 21, 35 and 36 thereof and has submitted that non supply of inquiry report is not fatal unless the prejudice has been caused to the workman is not alleged and contended by the workman, it cannot be presumed by the Court itself. 21, 35 and 36 thereof and has submitted that non supply of inquiry report is not fatal unless the prejudice has been caused to the workman is not alleged and contended by the workman, it cannot be presumed by the Court itself. In the facts of the present case, workman has never pointed out either before Industrial Tribunal or before the learned Single Judge that the prejudice has been caused to him due to non supply of the inquiry report. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Industrial Tribunal as well as by the learned Single Judge, deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 14th July, 2008 also deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. When the matter is called out none appears on behalf of respondent. 4. Having heard counsel for the appellant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No. 222 of 2009 dated 2.2.2009 mainly for the following facts and reasons: i) It appears that the services of the respondent workman was terminated vide order dated 21st April, 1993 and therefore, the petitioner has preferred a reference case under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. ii) A reference was made before the Industrial Tribunal no. 1 at Dhanbad to the effect that whether the action of dismissal of Sri Tarkeshwar Prasad Ex-Time-Keeper, Chasnalla Colliery by the management of Chasnalla Colliery is justified or not ? If not, to what relief Sri Tarkeshwar Prasad is entitled for ? iii) It further appears from the facts of the case that, thereafter, a charge sheet was issued upon the workman on 29th September, 1984/30th November, 1984, an inquiry was conducted and inquiry officer gave his report on 9th October, 1986 finding the charges proved. The charges levelled against the present respondent was that one workman namely Yudhisthir Bauri though was absent from duty for the period running from 2nd April, 1984 to 10th April, 1984 and on 16th April, 1984, but, his presence was shown by the respondent in the attendance Register. The said workman had never gone underground to perform his duty. Munshi's report was also pointing out that Yudhisthir Bauri had not gone to underground and had not performed any duty. The said workman had never gone underground to perform his duty. Munshi's report was also pointing out that Yudhisthir Bauri had not gone to underground and had not performed any duty. iv) It has been held by the Industrial Tribunal no.1 at Dhanbad in reference Case no. 23 of 1999 in Paragraph no.5 which is as under: “5.On 22.12.2000 by my predecessor-in-office it was held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the concerned was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice. Thereafter the case was fixed for hearing argument on merit and accordingly argument on merit of the case was heard.” v) In view of the aforesaid order, it appears that the inquiry held was fair, proper and in accordance with principle of natural justice. Now, only question left out before the Industrial Tribunal to decide the quantum of punishment. Nowhere it has been stated in the whole Award itself by the Industrial Tribunal that the quantum of punishment inflicted upon the respondent-workman was shockingly, disproportionate or unreasonably excessive. It has been observed by the Industrial Tribunal that as the inquiry report was not given to the delinquent it has caused serious prejudice and, hence, the full back wages have been awarded by the Industrial Tribunal because the respondent workman had already reached to the age of superannuation. This is an error apparent on the face of the record committed by the Industrial Tribunal as well as by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. vi) It has been held in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation Vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja reported in (2008)9 SCC page 31 paragraph nos. 21, 35 and 36 thereof are as under: “21. From the ratio laid down in B. Karunakar 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 non-supply 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 also clear that non-supply 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 non-supply 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. 35. In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan rejecting the argument that observance of natural justice would have made no difference, this Court said (SCC p. 395, para 24) “24.... The nonobservance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It will comes from a person who has denied justice that the persons who has been denied justice is not prejudiced.” (emphasis supplied) 36. The recent trend, however, is of “prejudice”. Even in those cases where procedural requirements have not been complied with, the action has not been held ipso facto illegal, unlawful or void unless it is shown that nonobservance had prejudicially affected the applicant.” (emphasis supplied) 5. In view of the aforesaid decisions, an error has been committed by the Industrial Tribunal in holding that a prejudice has been caused to the workman. Prejudice cannot be presumed by the Industrial Tribunal unless it has been pleaded and proved by the respondent-workman. The workman has to satisfy the Court that serious prejudice has been caused to him. In the facts of the present case, there is no such pleading made by the workman. Looking to the financial irregularities committed by the respondent as stated hereinabove and the inquiry which was held is valid and legal one we have to see whether the quantum of punishment inflicted upon the respondent is shockingly, disproportionate or not ? 6. It appears that looking to the nature of misconduct and the quantum of punishment inflicted upon the respondent-workman by this appellant cannot be said to be shockingly, disproportionate nor it is unreasonably excessive punishment. 6. It appears that looking to the nature of misconduct and the quantum of punishment inflicted upon the respondent-workman by this appellant cannot be said to be shockingly, disproportionate nor it is unreasonably excessive punishment. The respondent was performing duty of senior Time-Keeper and he has to maintain a Register in which the presence and absence of the workman will be shown and relying upon the same the employer used to pay the wages to the workers. Thus, it appears that time keeper has wrongly shown one workman as present in the attendance register for several days, but, in fact he was never present and wages has been paid to him which has resulted into financial loss. 7. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 187 , in paragraph no.18 as under: “18. In the instant case, the misappropriation of the funds by the delinquent employee was only Rs 360.95. This Court has considered the punishment that may be awarded to the delinquent employees who misappropriated the funds of the Corporation and the factors to be considered. This Court in a catena of judgments held that the loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated and that the sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissible in law. When an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of misappropriating the Corporation’s funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefore with the quantum of punishment. The judgment in Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti was also relied on in this judgment among others. Examination of the passengers of the vehicle from whom the said sum was collected was also not essential. In our view, possession of the said excess sum of money on the part of the respondent, a fact proved, is itself a misconduct and hence the Labour Court and the learned Judges of the High Court misdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence of the passengers which is wholly not essential. This apart, the respondent did not have any explanation for having carried the said excess amount. This apart, the respondent did not have any explanation for having carried the said excess amount. This omission was sufficient to hold him guilty. This act was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained as a conductor because such action or inaction of his was bound to result in financial loss to the appellant irrespective of the quantum.” (emphasis supplied) 8. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of U.P. SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 555 , in paragraph no. 23 as under: “23. In NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh and U.P. SRTC v. Vinod Kumar this Court held that the punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption/misappropriation, the only punishment is dismissal. (emphasis supplied) 9. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301 , in paragraphs no. 25 and 26 as under: 25. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari this Court held as under: (SCC p. 715, para 4) “4. … In a case of such nature—indeed, in cases involving corruption—there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant.” 26. In NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh this Court held that the punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption, the only punishment is dismissal. Similar view has been reiterated in U.P. SRTC v. Vinod Kumar and U.P. SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma. (emphasis supplied) 10. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Rajasthan SRTC v. Bajrang Lal, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 693 , in paragraphs no.21 and 22 as under: 21. As regards the question of disproportionate punishment is concerned, the issue is no more res integra. In U.P. SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma, it was held as under: (SCC p. 561, para 22) “22. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari this Court held as under: (SCC p. 715, para 4) ‘4. … In a case of such nature—indeed, in cases involving corruption cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. In U.P. SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma, it was held as under: (SCC p. 561, para 22) “22. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari this Court held as under: (SCC p. 715, para 4) ‘4. … In a case of such nature—indeed, in cases involving corruption cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant.’ 11. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston & Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam, U.P. SRTC v. Basudeo Chaudhary, Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Coop. Wholesale Stores Ltd.) v. Sahakari Noukarara Sangha, Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti and Rajasthan SRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma.” “22. In view of the above, the contention raised on behalf of the respondent employee, that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the delinquency is not worth acceptance. The only punishment in case of the proved case of corruption is dismissal from service.” (emphasis supplied) 12. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we hereby, quash and set aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid facts and reasons and we also quash and set-aside the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal No.1 at Dhanbad in Reference Case no. 23 of 1999 dated 14th July, 2008. 13. Instant Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and disposed of.