JUDGMENT : S.N. PRASAD, J. The award dated 27.04.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in I.D. Case No.25 of 2007 is challenged by the Management whereby and where under the workman has been directed to be reinstated in service till his retirement and to get all service benefits including back wages and consequential service benefits. 2. The fact leading to this case is that the workman was working as a Mondal in Food Storage Depot at Hirakud under the Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Sambalpur. Subsequently he was transferred to F.S.D., Barbil. While working as such he was suspended vide order dated 30.3.2004 by the District Manager, Sambalpur in contemplating for initiation of a departmental proceeding because of his alleged involvement in a criminal activity which has caused loss to the property of the Management. A memorandum with article of charges and statement of imputation of misconduct has been served upon the workman on 22.4.2004 directing him to submit written statement of defence within fifteen days of the receipt of the memorandum. He had submitted written statement explaining in detail that the allegation and charges are untrue and baseless and had been made to victimize him for his trade Union activities. The management being not satisfied with the explanation has started a regular departmental proceeding, the Enquiry Officer has proceeded with the matter in a great haste and found the charges proved, Disciplinary Authority after accepting the same has inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service. Therefore, the workman has raised a dispute raising his grievance before the appropriate authority to reinstate him in service with full back wages along with consequential benefits. 3. While on the other hand, case of the management is that in the year 2004-05 when a huge fraud in the guise of Income Tax refund was detected in FCI, Sambalpur District by Internal Audit in which most of the departmental workers of FCI, Sambalpur in connivance with some officers/officials of FCI have received an amount of Rs.2.64 crores fraudulently. The matter was enquired by the C.B.I./High Power Committee from F.C.I. Headquarters, New Delhi and the excess amount received by the workers was recovered from their wages in monthly installments. The said recovery was challenged by the workers individually and through FCI Workers Union before various legal forums, but all the cases were disposed of in favour of the Food Corporation of India. The said recovery was challenged by the workers individually and through FCI Workers Union before various legal forums, but all the cases were disposed of in favour of the Food Corporation of India. The workman herein while working at FCI, FSD, Hirakud was also a recipient of Rs.1,13,500/- fraudulently towards Income Tax refund. Being aggrieved by recovery, the workman along with other departmental workers of other depots of FCI, Sambalpur District entered into the premises of District Office, FCI, Sambalpur on 19.2.2004 and assaulted the officials and disrupted the official work. The workman as such committed serious misconduct which is unbecoming of a Corporation worker and thereby made himself liable to disciplinary action as per the provision contained in Para- 1, 3, 7, 8 and 12 of Clause 15 of the Certified Standing Order of the Food Corporation of India and accordingly enquiry was conducted in which he was provided opportunity of being heard and the Enquiry Officer has found the charges proved against him. Thereafter the order of punishment has been imposed which is dismissal from service. 4. The Management contends that considering the nature of allegations the order of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate. It is in the light of these factual aspects of the matter, the following reference was made:- “Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in dismissing Shri Adikand Patra w.e.f. 21.9.2006 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?” The Labour Court in order to reach to a rightful conclusion had called upon the parties to come with documents in order to answer the following issues:- 1. “Whether the reference is maintainable? 2. Whether the domestic enquiry held against the workman has been disposed off with due consideration to the principle of natural justice. 3. If so, whether the punishment imposed against the workman is proportionate to the charges? 4. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?” 5. While answering the Issue No.1 regarding maintainability of the reference that has been answered in affirmative and it has been held that the reference is maintainable. 6. 3. If so, whether the punishment imposed against the workman is proportionate to the charges? 4. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?” 5. While answering the Issue No.1 regarding maintainability of the reference that has been answered in affirmative and it has been held that the reference is maintainable. 6. The Issue No.2 which relates to the fairness of the domestic enquiry, the Labour Court has considered the matter in detail and come to conclusion that the enquiry proceeding has not been conducted in pursuance of the provision of the Certified Standing Order of FCI since there is delay in issuing the memorandum of charge and conclusion of the enquiry. But the Labour Court has given much emphasis upon the action of the enquiry officer who has taken into consideration the fact finding enquiry which has been conducted by a Team known as Regional Enquiry Team who had recorded the statements of management witnesses regarding incident which is said to have taken place on 19.2.2004 at District Manager’s Office, FCI, Sambalpur and placing reliance upon the same, the charge has been proved against the workman. 7. The Labour Court has taken into consideration the fact that since the Enquiry Officer is given much emphasis upon the fact finding enquiry and on the basis of the fact that the charge having been proved, it was incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to provide the copy of the report of the Regional Enquiry Team but such opportunity has never been given, hence the Labour Court has reached to the conclusion that the workman has not been provided with adequate and sufficient opportunity to defend his charge. The Labour Court has further taken into consideration the principle of parity in punishment and taking note of the fact that the similar charges have been framed against other persons namely Shri Charan Das, B.L. Reddy, M. Muduli and all of them were found guilty of self same charges out of the same occurrence. But the Management reinstated Shri Charan Das in service, allowed Shri Muduli to go on V.R.S. and imposed minor penalty like stoppage of increments against Shri Reddy. While the workman in the present case was awarded major punishment of dismissal from service which according to the Labour Court is in discriminatory in nature and taking into consideration, the order of dismissal has been reversed to the order of reinstatement. 8. While the workman in the present case was awarded major punishment of dismissal from service which according to the Labour Court is in discriminatory in nature and taking into consideration, the order of dismissal has been reversed to the order of reinstatement. 8. We have examined the factual aspect of the matter as well as the finding given by the Labour Court. There is no dispute about the fact that the employer has right to initiate a domestic enquiry against its employee but simultaneously it is also not in dispute that the enquiry is to be conducted in a fair manner and by giving adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the delinquent employee so that he be able to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer. 9. There is no dispute about the fact that when a domestic enquiry is being conducted by the employer, first thing is to be served memorandum along with imputation of charges supported by relevant documents basis upon which the charge has been framed so that the delinquent employee may be in a position by going through the documents defend himself before the Enquiry Officer, otherwise it will be said that the adequate and sufficient opportunity has not been provided to the delinquent employee. 10. Here, in this case the Labour Court after taking into consideration the fact that enquiry has not been conducted according to the Certified Standing Order but not given much emphasis upon it rather emphasis has been given with respect to the fact that the memorandum of charge has been issued on the basis of report submitted by the Regional Enquiry Team and has recorded the statements of management witnesses and thereafter submitted a report, this report has been made as a part of enquiry proceeding, placing reliance upon the same, the Enquiry Officer has submitted its report proving the charge against him. Thus, the report of the Regional Enquiry Team goes to the root of the issue as such it was incumbent upon the management to supply copy of the enquiry report submitted by the Regional Enquiry Team which was said to be preliminary enquiry report but when it is being relied upon by the Enquiry Officer, it was the duty of the Disciplinary Authority to provide these documents so that the delinquent employee or the workman may be in position to know as to what charges have been framed against him but this opportunity has never been given to the workman, hence he could not be able to rebut the finding given by the Regional Enquiry Team as such the enquiry will be said to be unfair and without following the principle of natural justice by not providing the workman adequate and sufficient opportunity of being heard. 11. It is settled that when anything goes to the root of the case, the documents is to be supplied by the Management otherwise the entire proceeding will vitiate. Reference in this regard needs to be made rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and others vrs. D.C. Aggarwal and another reported in AIR 1993 SC 1197 at para-4 and 5, it has been held which is being quoted herein below :- “4. xxx xxx Imposition of punishment to an employee, on material which is not only supplied but not disclosed to him, has not been countenanced by this Court. Procedural fairness is as much essence of right and liberty as the substantive law itself. 5. xxx xxx Purpose of supplying document is to contest its veracity or give explanation. Effect of non-supply of the report of Inquiry Officer before imposition of punishment need not be gone into nor it is necessary to consider validity of rule 5. But non-supply of CVC recommendation which was prepared behind the back of respondent without his participation, and one does not know on what material which was not only sent to the Disciplinary Authority but was examined and relied, was certainly violative of procedural safeguard and contrary to fair and just inquiry.” 12. We, after going through the award, have found that the Labour Court has rightly appreciated this aspect of the matter and found that the domestic enquiry has not been conducted fairly. 13. We, after going through the award, have found that the Labour Court has rightly appreciated this aspect of the matter and found that the domestic enquiry has not been conducted fairly. 13. So far as the fact relating to parity in punishment is concerned, there is no dispute about the settled proposition that with respect to imposition of punishment, the Disciplinary Authority is supposed to follow the principle of parity. Reference in this regard needs to be made of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank vrs. Rajendra Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372 at para-17 and 19.5, which is being quoted herein below:- “17. If there is a complete parity in the two sets of cases, imposing different penalties would not be appropriate as inflicting of any higher penalty in one case would be discriminatory and would amount to infraction of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That is the ratio laid down in the case of Rajendra Yadav vrs. State of M.P. reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73 , already taken note above, On the other hand, if there is some difference, different penalty can be meted out and what should be the quantum is to be left to the appellate authority. However, such a penalty should be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and cannot be shockingly disproportionate. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Obette (P) Ltd. vrs. Mohd. Shafiq Khan reported in (2005) 8 SCC 46 , even if the nature of misconduct committed by the two sets of employees is same, the conduct of one set of employees accepting the guilt and pleading for lenient view would justify lesser punishment to them than the other employees who remained adopted the mode of denial, with the result that charges stood proved ultimately in a full-fledged enquiry conducted against them. In that event, higher penalty can be imposed upon such delinquent employees. It would follow that choosing to take a chance to contest the charges such employees thereafter cannot fall back and say that the penalty in their cases cannot be more than the penalty which is imposed upon those employees who accepted the charges at the outset by tendering unconditional apology. 19.5. It would follow that choosing to take a chance to contest the charges such employees thereafter cannot fall back and say that the penalty in their cases cannot be more than the penalty which is imposed upon those employees who accepted the charges at the outset by tendering unconditional apology. 19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 9.4., would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.” In another judgment in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vrs. Triveni Sharan Mishra reported in (2014) 10 SCC 346 at para-9 and 14, it has been held, which is being quoted herein below:- “9. xxx xxx The question before us is as to whether the qualification as mentioned above is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or not, and as to whether awarding punishment of removal to the writ petitioner, is discriminatory in the light of the one awarded to similarly situated one Daluram Patidar i.e., only punishment of stoppage of increments for two years with cumulative effect? 14. From the papers on record before us, it appears that for mentioning less qualification to secure the job, another similarly situated employee (one Daluram Patidar) was let off by Life Insurance Corporation of India by awarding punishment of stoppage of increments for two years with cumulative effect. We are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly taken note of the said fact while allowing the writ petition, and directing the employer to consider the imposition of similar penalty after reinstatement of the writ petitioner.” 14. We are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly taken note of the said fact while allowing the writ petition, and directing the employer to consider the imposition of similar penalty after reinstatement of the writ petitioner.” 14. There is no dispute about the settled proposition that if the charges framed against the delinquent employee are same there must be parity in punishment but we have found from the award that the similar charges has been leveled against other persons namely Shri Charan Das, B.L. Reddy, M. Muduli and all of them were found guilty of self same charges out of the same occurrence. But the Management reinstated Shri Charan Das in service, allowed Shri Muduli to go on V.R.S. and imposed minor penalty like stoppage of increments against Shri Reddy, while this workman has been awarded with major punishment of dismissal from service which according to the Labour Court is indiscriminatory in nature. We on appreciation of these aspects of the matter are in agreement with the finding of the Labour Court which is based upon the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred hereinabove. 15. The Labour Court after taking into consideration these two aspects of the matter has passed the order of reinstatement by reversing the order of dismissal, hence we find no justification to interfere with the same. 16. After considering the finding given by the Labour Court in this regard which according to us based upon cogent evidence, hence we decline to interfere with the same on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by its Full Bench in the cases of Syed Yakoob Vrs. K. S. Radhakrishnan and others reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 and M/s.Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Krishna Kant Pandey, (2015) 4 SCC 270 . From perusal of the propositions laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated herein above, it is evident that the writ court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere with the fact finding if there is perversity in the finding or error apparent on the face of record but no such ground has been shown to have interfered in this case, hence following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we have declined to interfere with the award. 17. 17. Learned counsel for the workman in course of argument has submitted that the workman has already been superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation in the month of February, 2012, while the award has been passed to reinstate him as such there is no question of reinstatement in service but however he will be entitled to be given all service benefits. Hence, we find no reason to differ with the submission of the learned counsel for the workman. 18. Accordingly, in the facts of this case, the award is modified to the extent that the workman will be entitled to get all service benefit including back wages and consequential service benefits. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.