ORDER : 1. Heard on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. There is a delay of 190 days in filing this appeal. The application has been filed to explain the delay caused in the process of filing the appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after obtaining certified copy of the order, it was sent to the Corporation. It was examined by the Legal Cell, and after their opinion, it was sent to the Administrative Cell for sanction. After receiving the legal opinion and sanction for filing the appeal, it was processed and filed thereupon. The process took time. The delay has been caused largely in the process, thus it may be condoned as otherwise merit of the case may not be ignored due to delay in filing of the appeal. 3. Petitioner-non-appellant, present in person, has opposed the application and submits that there is no justifiable reason for delay in filing of the appeal. 4. We have considered rival submissions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 5. There is a delay of 190 days in filing of the appeal. The application for condonation of delay has been filed. The delay has been caused mainly in process of filing of the appeal. 6. We have considered the aforesaid in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 1353 . It has been held that the Court, while examining the delay, need not to seek justification of delay of each hour or day. It is also that the merit should not be sacrificed due to delay in filing the appeal unless it is highly belated. It is in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 132 . 7. In view of the above, we condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. 8. We have heard the appeal. 9. The petitioner-non-appellant, while working on the post of Conductor, was served with three different charge-sheets followed by an enquiry. The charges were found proved in the inquiry. On receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner-non-appellant was called for hearing. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. 8. We have heard the appeal. 9. The petitioner-non-appellant, while working on the post of Conductor, was served with three different charge-sheets followed by an enquiry. The charges were found proved in the inquiry. On receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner-non-appellant was called for hearing. The allegations have been made by the petitioner-employee that copy of the inquiry report was not supplied, however, notice for hearing has been received by him, as admitted. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment of dismissal from service. The punishment of dismissal is on the allegations of absence from duty, causing loss of revenue to the Corporation as the schedule of buses got affected and, in the other charge-sheet, absence from duty on transfer from Kota to Hanumangarh. The Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment of dismissal from service. The punishment of dismissal is on the allegations of absence from duty, causing loss of revenue to the Corporation as the schedule of buses got affected and, in the other charge-sheet, absence from duty on transfer from Kota to Hanumangarh. The gist of three charge-sheets has been mentioned in the order dated 10.05.2006 at Annexure-7 which is reproduced hereunder:- ¼1½ vkjksi i=kad 40@10-01-2000 & vkjksih fnukad 30-09-1999 ls fcuk fdlh iwoZ lwpuk ,oa vuqefr ds LosPNk ls viuh M;wVh ls fnukad 11-12-2001 rd vuqifLFkr jgk gSA bUgsa M;wVh ij mifLFkr gksus gsrq uksfVl la[;k 1251 fnukad 18-11-1999 ,oa 1213 fnukad 20-10-1999 buds ?kj ds irs ij fHktok;k tkdj M;wVh ij mifLFkr gksus gsrw fy[kk x;k fdUrq mDr nksuksa uksfVl buds }kjk ÁkIr ugha fd;s x;a ,oa Mkd foHkkx dh bl fVIi.kh ds lkFk ckj&ckj ?kj tkus lwpuk nsus ij ysus esa vkuk dkuh djrk gS okfil dk;kZdky dks ÁkIr gqbZA ¼2½ vkjksi i=kad 1476@13-10-1997 & vkjksih dh M;wVh fuEu fnukadks dks mlds lkeus vafdr ekxksZ ij FkhA buds }kjk vksQ gksrs le; okgu ds fdehŒ fujLr fd;s gS ftldk dkj.k ;k=h Hkkj u gksuk ,oa ;a= nks"k crk;k x;k gS%& ØŒ laŒ vksQ fnukad ekxZ la[;k fujLr fdehŒ gkfu fujLr dk dkj.k 1 04-09-1997 66&67 342 3420 dk;Z'kkyk ,oa vU; ekxZ ls 2 08-09-1997 62&63 162 1620 vU;ekxZ ;k=hHkkj 3 12-09-1997 62&63 162 1620 dk;Z'kkyk ysV@;k=h Hkkj ugha 4 24-09-1997 66&67 318 3180 vksu Mh,l, ds dkj.k 5 26-09-1997 60&61 180 1880 dk;Z'kkyk@czsdMkmu@;k=hHkkj ugha 6 28-09-1997 66&67 243 2430 ;k=hHkkj ,oa okgu [kjkc 7 30-09-1997 66&67 235 2350 ;k=hHkkj@lhch,l 8 02-10-1997 66&67 197 1970 ;k=hHkkj@Vk;jiapj 9 04-10-1997 66&67 108 1080 czsdMkmu@vU; ekxZ 10 06-10-1997 66&67 246 2460 Vk;jiapj@vU;ekxZ vksu Mh,l, 2193 22010@& ¼3½ bl izdkj vkjksih }kjk fuxe dks 2193 fdehŒ fujLr djrs gq;s #i;s 22010@& dh vkfFkZd gkfu igqapkbZ xbZ gSA ¼4½ vkjksi i=kad 381@25-06-2003 & vkjksih dk LFkkukarj.k Jheku dk;Zdkjh funs'kd ;k=k eq[;ky; t;iqj ds vkns'k la[;k 1203 fnukad 13-08-2002 ds }kjk dksVk vkxkj ls guqekux<+ vkxkj esa fd;k x;k ,oa mDr vkns'kksa esa gh bUgsa guqekux<+ vkxkj gsrq dk;ZeqDr dj fn;k x;k FkkA vkjksih }kjk guqekux<+ vkxkj esa dk;Zxzg.k ugha fd;k eq[; izca/kd guqekux<+ vkxkj }kjk M;wVh ij mifLFkr gksus gsrw i=kad 5710 fnukad 11-09-2000 ds }kjk uksfVl tfj;s jftLVMZ ,sŒMhŒ ?kj ds irs ij fHktok;k x;kA ftldh ikyuk esa vkjksih }kjk ÁkFkZuk i= fHktok;k tkdj viuh chekjh ihB o jhM dh ihMk ls chekj gksuk crk;k rFkk mldk bZykt lokbZ ekuflag gkLihVy t;iqj esa pyuk crk;k fdUrq buds }kjk viuh chekjh dk dksbZ Áek.k ugha fHktok;k x;k ,oa uk gh M;wVh ij mifLFkr gqvk] rc iqu% M;wVh ij mifLFkr gksus ,oa chekjh dk Áek.k i= izLrqr djus ckcr~ uksfVl Øekad 2415 fnukad 31-05-2003 ?kj ds irs ij fHktok;k x;k fdUrq vkjksih mifLFkr ugha gqvkA 10. The period of absence from duty was taken into consideration because in one charge-sheet dated 10.01.2000, the allegation of absence from duty is since 30.09.1999. The petitioner did not report on duty despite notices. In the other charge-sheet dated 15.10.1997, schedule of the bus had to be cancelled due to absence from duty. The petitioner did not report on duty between 04.09.1997 to 06.10.1997 on the dates given therein. It caused loss to the Corporation. The details of schedule with route and kilometers have been given in the charge-sheet. The third charge was for absence from duty after transfer from Kota to Hanumangarh. The charge-sheet was served on 25.06.2003. It was found that, subsequently also, the petitioner non-appellant did not report on duty. 11. The order of punishment was challenged by maintaining a writ petition, which was dismissed due to availability of remedy before the Labour Court. The petitioner-non- appellant preferred an appeal where order of learned Single Judge was interfered and the matter was remanded for afresh decision. After the remand, the petition was heard and decided vide the order under challenge. The interference in the order of punishment has been caused mainly on three grounds, which are as under:- 1. A common order of punishment has been passed, which is not permissible. 2. Non supply of the copy of the enquiry report. 3. Consideration of past delinquencies even though interfered by this Court earlier. 12. On the aforesaid three grounds, the Court made interference in the order of punishment. It has been substituted by the punishment of compulsory retirement with 30% back wages. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Single Judge has passed the order by referring to the past litigation having no bearing on the present case. The prior delinquencies were subsequent to the year 1985, whereas, the earlier litigation was in reference to the punishment order passed in the year 1985. The subsequent litigation was for regularisation of services. It was not on different punishments from time to time. 14. Learned Single Judge has further failed to consider that non-supply of enquiry report cannot vitiate the order of punishment unless a prejudice has been caused to the employee. No finding on the aforesaid has been recorded. The perusal of the enquiry report shows that the petitioner-non-appellant could not justify his absence from duty. 14. Learned Single Judge has further failed to consider that non-supply of enquiry report cannot vitiate the order of punishment unless a prejudice has been caused to the employee. No finding on the aforesaid has been recorded. The perusal of the enquiry report shows that the petitioner-non-appellant could not justify his absence from duty. In view of the above, even if the enquiry report was not served, though it was given to the petitioner-non- appellant and has been mentioned even in the order of punishment, interference in the impugned order could not have been made unless prejudice, is proved. 15. Learned Single Judge failed to consider the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074 . Therein consideration of the earlier judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 has been made. Thus, even on the ground of alleged non-supply of copy of the enquiry report, interference in the order of punishment should not have been made. 16. So far as passing of common order of punishment in reference to three charge-sheets is concerned, there exist no bar under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1958. Learned Single Judge interfered in the order of punishment on the ground that there is no provision to pass a common order. If there is no provision then even there exist no bar to pass a common order of punishment thus for the aforesaid reason also, interference in the order of punishment is uncalled for. He also submits that the petitioner largely remained absent from duty and total period of actual service, if counted, then comes to around three years and five months in a period of 22 years till the date of dismissal from service. The remaining period is of absence. 17. The petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit even if the punishment of dismissal is substituted by compulsory retirement. It is in absence of qualifying period for pension. In fact, if the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied, as alleged, the matter should have been sent back to the Department for passing a fresh order from the aforesaid stage but, this Court substituted the punishment after holding enquiry to be unfair. 18. It is in absence of qualifying period for pension. In fact, if the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied, as alleged, the matter should have been sent back to the Department for passing a fresh order from the aforesaid stage but, this Court substituted the punishment after holding enquiry to be unfair. 18. Petitioner-non-appellant, present in person, has supported the order and submits that Corporation was having bias against him since beginning. He was subjected to several punishments from time to time. It is despite interference in the order of punishment of the year 1985. He was reinstated but service was not regularised. The petitioner-non-appellant approached this Court again to seek regularisation of service. The service was subsequently regularised. He was subjected to many charge-sheets and punishments from time to time. 19. The petitioner was served with three charge-sheets regarding absence from duty starting from the year 1997. In fact, petitioner had no intention to remain absent from duties. It was due to his ill health. It is also stated that he was transferred from Kota to Hanumangarh vide order dated 14.08.2002, but order was subsequently cancelled in the year 2004 thus absence for a period of two years get nullified with the aforesaid. Learned Single Judge has thus rightly caused interference in the order of punishment. 20. We have considered rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 21. It is a case where petitioner-non-appellant was served with three different charge sheets. After the enquiry and opportunity of hearing, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed vide order dated 10.05.2006. The charge against the petitioner in one case was regarding absence from duty since 10.09.1999 till 11.12.2001. It was alleged that he did not join his duties despite notice during the intervening period. As and when notices were sent, they were returned. 22. In the similar manner, the other allegation was for remaining absent from duty despite allocation of route to the petitioner while working on the post of Conductor. Due to absence from duties from time to time between 04.07.1997 and 16.10.1997, the buses had to be off routed causing financial loss to the Corporation. 23. The third charge was for absence from duty on his transfer from Kota to Hanumangarh vide order dated 14.08.2002. The petitioner was served with notice from time to time but he failed to report on duty. 24. 23. The third charge was for absence from duty on his transfer from Kota to Hanumangarh vide order dated 14.08.2002. The petitioner was served with notice from time to time but he failed to report on duty. 24. All the three charges were found proved in the enquiry. The petitioner did not produce any Medical Certificate to justify his absence. The perusal of the punishment order shows service of enquiry report on the petitioner but it has been denied by him. 25. Learned Single Judge has caused interference in the order of punishment on three grounds. The first ground is for common order of punishment in respect of three different charge sheets. We do not find any bar under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules to pass a common order of punishment in reference to three chargesheets. The petitioner was otherwise governed by certified standing orders. No arguments on it was made and there exists no pleading in the writ petition. The aforesaid was not taken as a ground for challenge to the order of punishment. The judgment of learned Single Judge is thus beyond the pleadings and arguments. The interference in the order of punishment could not have been made on the aforesaid ground. If, at all, we assume that a common order of punishment cannot be passed, the matter should have been sent back to the administration to pass a fresh order of punishment instead of substituting it by the learned Single Judge. 26. The other ground for interference is alleged non-supply of copy of the enquiry report. The interference on the aforesaid ground has been made without recording finding about prejudice to the petitioner on account of non-supply of the copy of enquiry report. It was required to be taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of B. Karunakar (supra). The question framed on the aforesaid issue has been answered in the concluding paras of the judgment. Para V of the Judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference:- (v) The next question to be answered is what is the effect on the order of punishment when the report of the Inquiry 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. 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 amounts 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. Hence, in all cases where the Inquiry Officer's report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the courts 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. 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 Courts/Tribunals find 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. Where after following the above procedure, the Courts/Tribunals sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back-wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ultimately ordered should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome. If the employee succeeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be reinstated, the authority should be at liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period from the date of dismissal till the reinstatement and to what benefits, if any and the extent of the benefits, he will be entitled. The reinstatement made as a result of the setting aside of the inquiry for failure to furnish the report should be treated as reinstatement for the purpose of holding the fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more, where such fresh inquiry is held. That will also be the correct position in law. 27. The Apex Court has considered the issue. Non-supply of copy of enquiry report is not fatal unless prejudice out of it is caused. That will also be the correct position in law. 27. The Apex Court has considered the issue. Non-supply of copy of enquiry report is not fatal unless prejudice out of it is caused. If it is assumed that a prejudice was caused to the petitioner due to non-supply of copy of the enquiry report, matter should have been remanded to the department to proceed again from the stage of supply of copy of the enquiry report and to pass a fresh order. Learned Single Judge has failed to do so. It has substituted the order of punishment though, according to learned Single Judge, enquiry vitiated on account of non-supply of the inquiry report. In that case, no punishment could have been inflicted otherwise it is imposed based on the defective enquiry. 28. The last ground to cause interference in the order of punishment is in reference to past misconducts of the petitioner referred in the order. It is despite quashing of the order of earlier punishment. Learned Single Judge ignored that interference in the order of punishment was of the year 1985. It has not been referred in the punishment order. In fact, no material was placed to show interference in the other orders of punishments referred by the disciplinary authority. Even, if they are ignored and punishment is to be considered based on the delinquency in the present case, sufficient reason exist to impose punishment of dismissal from service as petitioner largely remained absent from duties. It is stated that he had worked hardly for four years in his entire service of twenty two years. 29. Taking into consideration overall facts, we find no justification to interfere in the order of punishment of dismissal from service and to substitute it with that of compulsory retirement with 30% back wages though petitioner largely remained absent from duties. 30. In view of the discussion made above, we allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 23.03.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge.