JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition the order of punishment dtd. 13.06.2000 (Annexure-12) and appellate order dtd. 4.10.2002 (Annexure-14) are under challenge. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner while was serving under Orissa Pollution Control Board as Regional Officer-in-Charge, Regional Office, Berhampur was served with an order issued by the Chairman on 21.8.1999 vide letter No. 12691 along with charges of allegation issued under the provision of Rule 15 of Orissa Civil Services (C.C.A. Rules, 1962) according to which it has been alleged against the petitioner that while he was working at Regional Office, Cuttack on 9.3.1997 issued no objection certificate in favour of M/s. Sri Mahabir Carbon Ltd., Jagatpur, Cuttack vide letters No. 97 dtd. 9.3.1997 and in course of preliminary enquiry the charges have been framed asking the petitioner to give reply of the charges within 30 days as to why the petitioner be not dismissed or removed from service. The petitioner was also placed under suspension. The petitioner after receiving the charge-sheet had submitted a representation to the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board with prayer to review the order of suspension. The authorities have not satisfied themselves with the reply submitted by him and as such the petitioner was prosecuted by initiating a regular departmental proceeding and in the enquiry the charges leveled against the petitioner has been found to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority has accepted the charges and thereafter the punishment of Censure, withholding of three increments with cumulative effect, period of suspension be treated as such and only subsistence allowance during the period of suspension will be allowed and the delinquent shall not be assigned with any independent charge of the office of the Board for a period of three years. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority has affirmed the order of punishment considering the gravity of the charges. 3. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority has affirmed the order of punishment considering the gravity of the charges. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order of punishment is before this court on the following grounds:-- "(i) The Orissa Water (Prevention, Control and Pollution) Rules, 1983 (herein after referred to as 'The Rule, 1983) is meant for regulating the service condition of the petitioner, wherein a provision has been made under Rule 16(7) making it mandatory that the Departmental Proceeding will be initiated against an employee with the previous permission of the Board and the case of the petitioner that he has been appointed as Asst. Environment Scientist by the Board and as such the competent authority to initiate a departmental proceeding is the Board and as per the provision as laid down under Rule 16(7) no such permission has been obtained by the Board before initiation of departmental proceeding. (ii) The incident took place on 9.3.1997 but the charge-sheet was submitted on 24.8.1999 i.e. after delay of two and half years hence on the ground of delay the departmental proceeding is fit to be vitiated. (iii) Relevant documents have not been supplied to him. (iv) The Chairman participated in the Board meeting and approved the decision of the Board regarding approval of the decision of the Chairman for initiating departmental proceeding. (v) The enquiry report has not been supplied along with the second show cause notice. (vi) The enquiry officer has recommended the punishment in the enquiry report which is not permissible. On these grounds this writ petition has been filed." 4. While on the other hand the case of opposite party - Board as has been pleaded in counter affidavit as well as additional affidavit is that the petitioner while posted as Asst. Environment Scientist was supposed to perform his duty with utmost sincerity but he has failed to discharge his duty as because he has issued no objection certificate illegally and when the illegality has been surfaced, the authorities have directed to conduct a preliminary enquiry, in which the petitioner has been found to be involved in the irregularity and thereafter the Chairman has decided to initiate a departmental proceeding. The Rule 16(7) of the Act, 1983 provides that the departmental proceeding will be initiated with the previous sanction of the Board, however, the Chairman considering the fact that the allegation leveled against the petitioner was serious in nature hence he has decided to initiate a departmental proceeding but in the 62nd meeting of the Board the Board has also approved the decision of the Chairman and as such there is compliance of the provision of Rule 16(7) of the Rule, 1983. The petitioner has given his defence reply before the authority denying the allegation but the authorities have not found the reply satisfactory and thereafter taken decision to initiate a departmental proceeding in which the petitioner had participated and availed all opportunity without raising this point in course of enquiry and as such the point regarding jurisdiction is not available with the petitioner after conclusion of the departmental proceeding. Moreover the petitioner has not been prejudiced even though the previous approval has not been obtained from the Board since nothing has been pleaded in the writ petition that how the petitioner has been prejudiced if there is no previous sanction of the Board regarding the decision of the Chairman for initiating departmental proceeding against him. The petitioner has defended himself before the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer has provided all opportunity of being heard, all the documents have been directed to be inspected and as such there is sufficient compliance of the principle of natural justice. So far as copy of the enquiry report along with the second show cause notice is concerned, it is not a rule that due to non-supply of enquiry report along with second show cause notice the departmental proceeding will be ipso facto vitiated rather now the rule is that the delinquent has to establish before the Court or Tribunal as to how he has been prejudiced due to non-supply of the enquiry report but from going through the entire pleading it has nowhere been pleaded that how the petitioner has been prejudiced due to non-supply of copy of enquiry report, hence in absence of any pleading in this regard merely on the basis that copy of enquiry report has not been supplied to the petitioner, the departmental proceeding will not be vitiated. So far as delay in initiation of departmental proceeding is concerned, merely on account of delay of two and half years the departmental proceeding will not be vitiated. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the nature of allegation against the petitioner is serious and as such merely on the technical ground the departmental proceeding will not be vitiated. It has been submitted by learned counsel for opposite party - Board that the petitioner has availed all opportunities, i.e. to cross-examine the witnesses but he has not availed the same and had not adduced any evidence in his defence for interrogation. So far as the contention regarding proposal of punishment having been referred by the enquiry officer in the enquiry report, it has been contended that the same is merely a recommendation sent before the competent authority for imposing the punishment and thereafter the disciplinary authority after applying its mind has inflicted punishment taking into consideration nature and gravity of the allegation and even the appellate authority has appreciated all these aspects of the matter and affirmed it, hence it cannot be said that the petitioner has been prejudiced. Moreover from perusal of the writ petition no pleading has been made in this regard. 5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record. Before coming to the grounds taken by the parties it is necessary to reflect the charges leveled against the petitioner which is being reproduced herein below:-- "It is brought to the notice of Orissa Pollution Control Board that two fake NOCs were issued in favour of M/s. Sonali Minerals and Metals at Kharadi, Jajpur, Orissa and M/s. Shree Mahavir Carbon Limited, Jagatpur, Cuttack vide letter No. 343 dtd. 24.4.1997 and No. 97 dtd. 9.3.1997 respectively from Regional Office, Cuttack. It is understood from Regional Officer, Cuttack that these NOCs are faked and not issued under his signature. Dr. D.K. Behera, Environment Scientist-I conducted an enquiry into the matter and from the enquiry report submitted by him, the following charges are framed against you. 1. The original faked NOC issued in favour of M/s. Shree Mahavir Carbon Limited was collected by R.O., Cuttack and was kept it in a file which was in the custody of Sri T.K. Dey, Jr. Asst. working on daily wage basis. 1. The original faked NOC issued in favour of M/s. Shree Mahavir Carbon Limited was collected by R.O., Cuttack and was kept it in a file which was in the custody of Sri T.K. Dey, Jr. Asst. working on daily wage basis. It is understood from him that you called for the file from Sri Dey and after 3 days when he brought the file from your table to submit the same to R.O. as wanted by him, he found that the original faked NOC was missing from the file. He has brought it to the notice of R.O., Cuttack verbally which was confirmed by R.O., Cuttack to the Inquiring Officer Dr. Behera. So you, the then A.E.S., Cuttack is found responsible for missing of such document. 2. It is understood from Sri Sidheswar Biswal, Jr. Typist, Regional Office, Cuttack that the alleged faked NOC issued in favour of M/s. Shree Mahavir Carbon Limited was typed by him as per your instruction and typed copy was handed over to you. So, it is evident that you have masterminded to issue of such faked NOC and found directly responsible for this. 3. It is understood that you have issued two letters with same content, i.e. (i) Letter No. 243/RO/CTC dt. 17.3.1997 (ii) Letter No. 277/RO/CTC dt. 22.3.1997 in favour of M/s. Shree Mahavir Carbon Limited, where you have indicated the suitability of site for establishment of the plant. You were not authorized to write such letters as this power vest with the Head Office at Bhubaneswar. Moreover, on the dates of issue of these letters, R.O., Cuttack himself was present in the office and you have not taken his approval on this matter. Issue of two similar letters with same content by you proves your malafide intention and also issue of alleged faked NOC by you in favour of the firm 4. The above charges show that you are guilty of (i) Lacking of maintaining integrity and exercising powers properly, (ii) Deviation of statutory provision in granting of NOC. Issue of two similar letters with same content by you proves your malafide intention and also issue of alleged faked NOC by you in favour of the firm 4. The above charges show that you are guilty of (i) Lacking of maintaining integrity and exercising powers properly, (ii) Deviation of statutory provision in granting of NOC. (iii) Showing undue favour to M/s. Shree Mahavir Carbon Ltd., Jagatpur, Cuttack, (iv) Criminal activity and intention, and (v) Misconduct." Thus it is evident that in nut shell the charges leveled against the petitioner is that while he was posted in the Regional Office, Cuttack he has issued two fake NOCs in favour of M/s. Sonali Minerals and Metals at Kharadi, Jajpur and M/s. Shree Mahavir Carbon Ltd., Jagatpur, Cuttack which suggests that the petitioner was lacking of maintaining integrity and exercising powers properly, deviation of statutory provision in granting NOCs, showing undue favour to M/s. Shree Mahavir Carbon Ltd., Jagatpur, Cuttack, criminal activity and intention and misconduct. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has given his defence reply denying the allegations and thereafter the authorities after finding that the reply submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory has asked the petitioner to participate in the departmental proceeding and accordingly the petitioner without any objection has participated in the enquiry by putting his appearance before the enquiry officer and thereafter the enquiry report was prepared and submitted. The enquiry report has been annexed with the counter affidavit and on its perusal it transpires that the enquiry officer has concluded the enquiry on the basis of (i) Preliminary enquiry report of Dr. Behera, E.S.-I, (ii)The explanation submitted by the delinquent, (iii) the Enquiry report of B.N. Bhoi, E.S.-II along with enclosures, (iv) the written explanation of the delinquent with respect to additional charges, and (v) concerned files of M/s. Mahavir Carbon Ltd. and M/s. Sonali Minerals and Metals. It further transpires that the petitioner did not pray to cross-examine any of the witness of the charge nor he did produce any document in defence for interrogation. 6. The enquiry officer has found the charge No. (i) as proved; and finding was given on the basis of the statement of the witnesses who were posted during the relevant time in the Regional Office and their statement has corroborated from the finding given in the preliminary enquiry of the Regional Officer. 6. The enquiry officer has found the charge No. (i) as proved; and finding was given on the basis of the statement of the witnesses who were posted during the relevant time in the Regional Office and their statement has corroborated from the finding given in the preliminary enquiry of the Regional Officer. It has also come in course of enquiry that the very same matter was a subject matter of discussion in between the Chairman and the petitioner where at page 8 of the explanation submitted by the delinquent it appears that the Chairman had expressed his displeasure in the matter of fake NOC and since the petitioner was knowing this fact that the Chairman had expressed his displeasure and as such he was waiting for earliest opportunity to destroy the evidence which is the first charge since the same relates to missing of original fake NOC from the original file and the enquiry officer has come out with the specific finding that since the petitioner was related with the said document, i.e. the fake NOC issued in favour of M/s. Sonali Minerals and Metals Ltd. and as such he was the only interested person in removing the letter from the file to escape from the on coming charges and hence taking into consideration this aspect of the matter charge No. 1 has been established. So far as charge No. (ii) is concerned which relates to the preparing of fake NOC issued in favour of M/s. Shri Mahavir Carbon Ltd. which was passed upon the inspection report having been typed by the typist concerned and that has been found to be drafted by the petitioner in the capacity of his posting in the Regional Office having competent authority to issue NOCs having posted as Asst. Environment Scientist in the Regional Office and as such the charge has been proved by showing the petitioner as the master mind in respect of issuance of fake NOC. Charge No. (iii) also relates to issuance of fake NOC in favour of M/s. Shri Mahavir Carbon Ltd. where the petitioner had indicated the suitability of site for establishment of the plant and this charge has also been found to be proved. Charge No. (iii) also relates to issuance of fake NOC in favour of M/s. Shri Mahavir Carbon Ltd. where the petitioner had indicated the suitability of site for establishment of the plant and this charge has also been found to be proved. Like that the additional charges has also been found to be proved and thereafter the enquiry officer has forwarded the charge before the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority after accepting the charges has inflicted following punishments: "(i) Censure, (ii) withholding of three increments with cumulative effect, (iii) period of suspension be treated as such and only subsistence allowance during the period of suspension will be allowed, and (iv) the delinquent shall not be assigned with any independent charge of the office of the Board for a period of three years." This order has been challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority and the appellate authority after taking into consideration all aspect of the matter has affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 7. The petitioner has raised various grounds first is that the departmental proceeding has been initiated by the Chairman and the Chairman has got no jurisdiction as per the provision as contained in Rule 16(7) of the Rules, 1983 which is being quoted herein below:-- "16(7). The chairman shall have powers to terminate or remove or suspend or otherwise punish or take disciplinary action against such employee of the Board whom he has authority to appoint and with the previous approval of the Board he can exercise such power in respect of officers and employees appointed by him with previous approval of the Board. Due notice and opportunity to the officers and employee shall be given before taking any such action." It is the case of the petitioner that the Chairman has initiated departmental proceeding although the chairman has got power but with the previous approval of the board. Next ground taken that the copy of enquiry report along with the second show cause notice has not been supplied to the petitioner for which he was prejudiced. Next ground taken that the copy of enquiry report along with the second show cause notice has not been supplied to the petitioner for which he was prejudiced. Rebutting this ground learned arguing counsel for opposite party has submitted that the petitioner has failed to establish any prejudice rather so far as the power of Chairman is concerned although the Chairman has not taken any previous approval but in course of departmental proceeding in the 62nd meeting of the Board the sanction has been obtained. However the same has been rebutted by learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the Board's meeting was also vitiated as because the Chairman was also one of the member and as such it cannot be said that sufficient compliance of the provision as contained in Rule 16(7) has been made. In order to appreciate this argument it is relevant to see the relevant proposition of law as to what would be the effect if the departmental proceeding has not been initiated by the competent authority and can the departmental proceeding be vitiated on this ground only, the answer will be negative because the departmental proceeding is to be initiated in this case by the chairman but with the previous sanction of the Board. However, prior sanction of the Board has not been obtained before initiation of departmental proceeding but in course of the proceeding the Board has sanctioned considering the gravity of the charges and furthermore that the petitioner has not shown any prejudice by making any specific pleading in the writ petitioner that how he has been prejudiced if the Chairman has initiated the departmental proceeding or even the Chairman took part in the 62nd Board Meeting. Further in course of enquiry it has been found that two NOCs have been issued in favour of two units which are found to be fake. However, the petitioner denies it but the enquiry officer in course of enquiry has given a specific finding that fake NOCs have been issued by the petitioner and when the petitioner came to know about this that things have been surfaced then in order to destroy the evidence he has taken away the fake NOCs from the original file and this charge, which is very serious in nature, has been established against the petitioner in the enquiry. In this connection judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maharashtra State Mining Corporation Vrs. Sunil, AIR 2006 SC 1923 needs to be referred. That was a case wherein the order of dismissal was passed by the Managing Director who was not competent to pass order however the Managing Director's order dismissing the respondent from the service was rectified by the Board of Directors subsequently and the Board of Directors unquestionable have power to terminate the service of the respondent and as such ratification has been said to be related back to the date of order and validated it. This proposition has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in this case by observing it at paragraphs 7 & 11 which are being reproduced herein below: "7. The High Court was right when it held that an act by a legally incompetent authority is invalid. But it was entirely wrong in holding that such an invalid act cannot be subsequently 'rectified' by ratification of the competent authority. Ratification by definition means the making valid of an act already done. The principle is derived from the Latin maxim 'Ratihabitio priori mandato aequiparatur' namely 'a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act'. Therefore ratification assumes an invalid act which is retrospectively validated. 11. In the present case, the Managing Director's order dismissing the respondent from the service was admittedly ratified by the Board of Directors on 20th February 1991, and the Board of Directors unquestionably had the power to terminate the services of the respondent. On the basis of the authorities noted, it must follow that since the order of the Managing Director had been ratified by the Board of Directors such ratification related back to the date of the order and validated it." Applying the said principle in the present case wherein also although the regulation provides that the departmental proceeding is to be initiated with the previous sanction of the Board, but in the 62nd meeting of the Board the decision taken by the Chairman has been rectified hence it would be related back to the date when the Chairman has taken decision to initiate the departmental proceeding. In view of this and also in view of the fact that the petitioner has not made out a case regarding prejudice having been caused to him by not getting previous approval of the Board before initiation of departmental proceeding or the Chairman had participated in 62nd Board Meeting, the departmental proceeding cannot be vitiated on these grounds. 8. So far as the contention that copy of enquiry report along with second show cause notice has not been served, in this regard reference of various authorities of Hon'ble Apex Court needs to be referred that earlier view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vrs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 that a copy of the enquiry report was required to be supplied by the disciplinary authority to the delinquent before an order of punishment is imposed on him and it was held that non-supply of enquiry report to the delinquent employee would be violative of principles of natural justice. Non-supply of report of the enquiry officer to the delinquent would constitute infringement of the doctrine of natural justice. The view has been changed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a contrary view in the case of Kailash Chander Asthana Vrs. State of U.P., (1998) 3 SCC 600 wherein it was held that non-supply of the report would not ipso facto vitiate the order of punishment in absence of prejudice to the delinquent. Since in the case of Kailash Chander Asthana (supra) the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mohd. Ramzan Khan (supra) was not brought to the notice hence the matter was placed before a larger Bench and accordingly the judgment of Electronic Corpn. Of India Vrs. B. Karunakar, (1992) 1 SCC 709 has come wherein their Lordship have pleased to hold at paragraphs 29,30, 7 31 which are being reproduced herein below. "29. Hence it has to be held that when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer's report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges leveled against him. That right is a part of the employee's right to defend himself against the charges leveled against him. That right is a part of the employee's right to defend himself against the charges leveled against him. A denial of the enquiry officer's report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges, is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice. 30.(v) The next question to be answered is what is the effect of the order of punishment when the report of the enquiry officer is not furnished to the employee and what relief should be granted to him in such cases. The answer to this question has to be relative to the punishment awarded. When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non-furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee with back wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether in fact, 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 get all the consequential benefits. It amount to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an 'unnatural expansion of natural justice' which in itself is antithetical to justice. 31. It amount to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an 'unnatural expansion of natural justice' which in itself is antithetical to justice. 31. Hence, in all cases where the enquiry officer's report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the Court and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming to the Court / Tribunal and give the employee an opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of the non-supply of the report. If after hearing the parties, the Court / Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court / Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment. The Court / Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. The courts should avoid resorting to short-cuts. Since it is the Courts / Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to the question and give their reasons for setting aside or not setting aside the order of punishment, (and not any internal appellate or revisional authority), there would be neither a breach of the principles of natural justice nor a denial of the reasonable opportunity. It is only if the Court / Tribunal finds that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case that it should set aside the order of punishment." From the ratio laid down in B. Karunakar's case it is crystal clear that the doctrine of natural justice requires supply of copy of enquiry report to the delinquent if such enquiry officer is otherwise than the disciplinary authority. It is also clear that non-supply of report of enquiry officer is in the breach of natural justice but it is subsequently held that failure to supply copy of the report of the enquiry officer to the delinquent would not ipso facto result in the proceeding being declared null and void and the order of punishment non est and ineffective. It is also clear that non-supply of report of enquiry officer is in the breach of natural justice but it is subsequently held that failure to supply copy of the report of the enquiry officer to the delinquent would not ipso facto result in the proceeding 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. In the case of Aligarh Muslim University Vrs. Mansoor Ali Khan, (2000) 7 SCC 529 it has been held regarding automatic termination of service of an employee on unauthorized absence for certain period. M remained absent for more than five years and, hence, the post was deemed to have been vacated by him. M challenged the order being violative of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was afforded before taking the action. Though the Court held that the rules of natural justice were violated, it refused to set aside the order on the ground that no prejudice was caused to M. Referring to several cases, considering the theory of "useless" or "empty" formality and noting "admitted or undisputed" facts, the Court held that the only conclusion which could be drawn was that had M been given a notice, it "would not have made any difference" and, hence, no prejudice had been caused to M. In view of these settled propositions when the pleading of the petitioner will be looked into, the petitioner has not pleaded at all anywhere in the writ petition that how he has been prejudiced due to non-supply of the copy of the enquiry report along with second show cause notice and in absence thereof the departmental proceeding cannot ipso facto vitiate. From perusal of paragraph 31 of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B. Karunakar it is evident that even in case of non-supply of enquiry report even the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court / Tribunal could not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished. Applying the said principle and after going through the enquiry report copy of which has been annexed with the counter affidavit by serving a copy of the same upon learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, no argument has been advanced regarding the prejudice having been caused to the petitioner due to non-supply of the enquiry report, but when this court has perused the enquiry report it transpires that the enquiry officer after taking into consideration all aspects of the matter and dealing with the conduct of the petitioner by corroborating it with other evidence has come out with a specific finding that it is the petitioner who has issued fake NOCs and not only that he has also taken away the fake NOCs from the original file by casting allegations against one employee engaged as D.L.R. but the enquiry officer very consciously after elaborating all these things has come to a finding that it is the petitioner who was related with the said fake NOC and as such he can be the only person involved in taking away the fake NOC. The enquiry officer has also found the additional charges proved. Further in course of argument also learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who argued out the case at length has argued nothing regarding the prejudice having been caused to the petitioner by non-supply of copy of the enquiry report and the second show cause notice and even in additional affidavit having been filed by the petitioner not pleaded that how non-supply of enquiry report has caused prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice hence it cannot be said that merely on account of non-furnishing the copy of the enquiry report, the departmental proceeding will vitiate. The other ground taken by the petitioner is that the minor punishment and major punishment cannot be inflicted by way of same order. But taking into consideration the nature of allegation this principle is not applicable because the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is Censure, withholding of three increments with cumulative effect, he will not be entitled for any salary save and except subsistence allowance for the period of suspension and he has been deprived from holding any accountable post for three years. Censure being a minor punishment having been passed on 13.6.2000 now has got no force, i.e. after lapse of sixteen years. Censure being a minor punishment having been passed on 13.6.2000 now has got no force, i.e. after lapse of sixteen years. So far as the other punishment, i.e. the period of suspension be treated as such and only subsistence allowance during the period of suspension will be allowed, this cannot be said to be a punishment in view of the provision of Rule 91(3)(b) of the Odisha Service Code which provides as follows:-- "91(3)(b). In the case of suspension when a Government servant, not having been exonerated of the charges fully, is reinstated in service, he may be allowed subsistence allowance only for the period of suspension as admissible under Rule 90." Since it is a case of not exonerating the petitioner from the charges fully and some punishment has been inflicted with a direction to reinstate him in service, as such according to the statutory provision the petitioner has been allowed subsistence allowance only for the period of suspension as admissible under Rule 90. Hence this cannot be said to be a punishment. Moreover this is also not listed under the list of punishment as applicable to the delinquent employee, hence the ground taken by the petitioner is of no relevance in the facts and circumstances of this case. So far as the other ground that the documents have not been supplied, this will also not vitiate the departmental proceeding and the order of punishment as because the petitioner has not shown anywhere in the writ petition that he has ever demanded any documents which was necessary according to him, rather from perusal of the enquiry report it transpires that the enquiry officer has given occasion to cross-examine and adduce evidence but the petitioner has not availed that opportunity and also he has not made any requisition. Since nothing has been pleaded in the writ petition or no document has been annexed with the writ petition that the petitioner has ever demanded any document sowing relevance of the document with the charges leveled. Since nothing has been pleaded in the writ petition or no document has been annexed with the writ petition that the petitioner has ever demanded any document sowing relevance of the document with the charges leveled. It is correct that the relevant document is to be supplied to the delinquent employee but if it is not relevant in the eye of the disciplinary authority and but relevant in the eye of the delinquent employee it is the foremost duty of the delinquent to make a requisition in this regard by showing relevancy and then only if the authority will not supply the document then only it can be said that adequate opportunity to defend has not been given to the delinquent employee but that is not the case here. Hence this will also not vitiate the departmental proceeding or the order of punishment. The ground taken by the petitioner regarding delay in initiation of departmental proceeding, since the incident took place on 9.3.1997 but charge sheet was submitted on 24.8.1999 hence there is delay of two and half years. But on the ground of delay of two and half years the departmental proceeding cannot be vitiated. In this connection the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vrs. N. Radhakrishnan, (1998) 2 SCR 693 wherein their Lordships have held whether the departmental proceeding is to be quashed on the ground of delay is to be determined according to the facts and circumstances of each case and the essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weight them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The relevant portion of the judgment as contained in paragraph 19 is as follows: "19. It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weight them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse consideration." From perusal of the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Radhakrishnan their Lordships have taken into consideration regarding inordinate delay but this case cannot be said to be an inordinate delay in issuance of charge- sheet because the charge-sheet was issued on 24.8.1999 for an offence which took place on 9.3.1997 hence it cannot be said to be inordinate delay hence this ground is not worth to be considered. 9. 9. The petitioner has also filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority after taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter and considering the nature of allegations has affirmed the order passed by the delinquent authority. Thus there is concurrent finding given by the authorities and the authorities after taking into consideration the gravity of charges has inflicted the punishment and merely on the ground of procedural lapses the disciplinary proceeding will not vitiate unless and until the petitioner will show any miscarriage of justice which is lacking in this writ petition and in absence thereof the ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable to this court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.