JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Heard Mr. N. Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. U. Baruah, the learned Standing Counsel, ASTC, appearing for all the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 10.06.2016 (Annexure-7) by which he has been imposed with a penalty of recovery of Rs. 4,89,105/- from his monthly salary @ Rs. 10,000/- per month with effect from the month of June, 2016 in 48th installments and Rs. 9,105/- only in the last 49th installments. 3. Facts of the case may be narrated at the outset. The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer and he was working as Manager at Swagat Retail Outlet at Betkuchi under the Assam State Transport Corporation (ASTC). He was posted as such from the year 2008. On 13.04.2015 some miscreants snatched an amount of Rs. 9,78,210/- which was the collection of the Outlet meant to be deposited in the Gorchuk Branch of the State Bank of India. Pursuant to the incident, an FIR was lodged before the Officer-in-charge, Gorchuk Police Station and at the same time, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice on 09.10.2015 by the respondent No. 2. In response to the show-cause notice dated 09.10.2015, the petitioner submitted his reply on 14.10.2015. The respondent authorities while issuing the show-cause notice to the petitioner also conducted 2 (two) internal enquiries and pursuant to which, 2 (two) internal enquiry reports dated 23.04.2015 and 24.04.2015 were submitted. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a memorandum of charge under Rule 9 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (herein after referred to as Rules of 1964) read with regulation 82 of the ASTC Employees Service Regulation, 1971. On 29.12.2015 (Annexure-5) asking him to show-cause as to why any of the penalties prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964 should not be inflicted upon him. As per the memorandum of charge issued to the writ petitioner, 3 charges were made against him and he was asked to submit his written statement of defence within 15 days of receipt of the memorandum. 4. In response to the memo of charge, the writ petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 12.01.2016 (Annexure-6) denying his responsibility on the loss that was incurred due to the incident which happened on 13.04.2015. 4. In response to the memo of charge, the writ petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 12.01.2016 (Annexure-6) denying his responsibility on the loss that was incurred due to the incident which happened on 13.04.2015. Importantly, the writ petitioner contended that he was scheduled to be on duty at the Swagat Retail Outlet at Betkuchi only from 11 A.M. on 13.04.2015 while the incident occurred before the scheduled time. He also stated that it was not known to him that the other incumbent who was supposed to be on duty from 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. had availed leave on 13.04.2015. However, not being satisfied with the reply given by the writ petitioner, the respondent authority concerned decided to impose upon him the impugned penalty vide order dated 10.06.2016 (Annexure-7). 5. Mr. N. Haque, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to passing of the impugned penalty, the writ petitioner was not given a copy of the enquiry report and therefore, he has denied the chance to submit a representation against the enquiry report. He submits that had he been given a copy of the enquiry report, the petitioner would have surely submitted a representation and the outcome of the departmental proceeding could have been different. By referring to Rule 9 (A) of the Rules 1964 the learned counsel submits that it is mandatory for a delinquent Government servant to be supplied with a copy of the enquiry report along with the findings of the disciplinary authority as to whether he agrees with the findings of the enquiry officer or otherwise. Therefore, by not furnishing the writ petitioner a copy of the enquiry report, the writ petitioner has been greatly prejudiced. Thus, the impugned order being vitiated in law, the same cannot be sustained and this Court may suitably interfere with the penalty imposed upon the petitioner. 6. Ms. U. Baruah, the learned Sanding Counsel, ASTC, appearing for the respondents on the other hand submits that the entire departmental proceeding against the writ petitioner has been conducted fairly and as per, the procedure prescribed in this regard. The petitioner was given a fair opportunity to defend the allegation made against him by allowing him to participate in the enquiry proceeding. The petitioner was given a fair opportunity to defend the allegation made against him by allowing him to participate in the enquiry proceeding. He was also given the opportunity to cross-examine the departmental witnesses and therefore, there is nothing irregular in the entire departmental proceeding which culminated into imposition of the penalty on the writ petitioner. With regard to the non-supply of the enquiry report to the writ petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the same cannot vitiate the entire departmental proceedings. She submits that duty is cast upon the writ petitioner to show that prejudice has been caused to him for not being supplied with the enquiry report. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to show that such omission has resulted in causing serious prejudice upon him and therefore, there is no substance in the grievance sought to be projected by the writ petitioner. To substantiate her submission, the learned Standing Counsel relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar and Others reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 . She further submits that although the petitioner has not been furnished with a copy of the enquiry report but the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition have annexed a copy of the enquiry report and the petitioner has failed to challenge the same. She therefore submits that the writ petition being without any merit the same should be dismissed. 7. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the records produced by the learned Standing Counsel on the department proceeding. The admitted position is that pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 09.10.2015, the petitioner was served with a memorandum of charge on 29.12.2015 (Annexure-5) and departmental proceeding drawn against him on the 3 charges set out in the memorandum of charge. Although the petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry, the ultimate enquiry report that was submitted by the enquiry officer was not furnished to him. It is true that even if he was not furnished with a copy of the enquiry report, the same being annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents, the petitioner ought to have challenged the same. Although the petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry, the ultimate enquiry report that was submitted by the enquiry officer was not furnished to him. It is true that even if he was not furnished with a copy of the enquiry report, the same being annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents, the petitioner ought to have challenged the same. It is settled principle of law that non-furnishing of the enquiry report will not vitiate the departmental proceedings unless the delinquent officer is able to show that great prejudice has been caused to him for non-furnishing of a copy thereof. This principle of law has been communicated by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions including the case of Managing Director, ECIL (Supra). Paragraph No. 31 of the judgment of Managing Director, ECIL (Supra) passed by the Apex Court being the relevant portion of the decision in this regard may be gainfully quoted as below: "31. Hence, in all cases where the enquiry 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. 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. 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. Where after following the above procedure, the Court/Tribunal 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 enquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the enquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report." 8. Coming to the present case, it is seen that although the departmental proceeding was drawn against the petitioner and thereafter, concluded, the petitioner was not placed under suspension and he continued in service. Rule 9 (A) of the Rules, 1964 provides that on conclusion of the enquiry made by the enquiry officer, a copy of the enquiry report has to be furnished to the delinquent officer along with the statement of finding of the disciplinary authority together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any. The said provision cannot be regarded as an empty formality but a means to ensure that the principles of natural justice is observed. The omission to furnish a copy of the enquiry report is in my considered opinion even at this stage is curable if the petitioner is allowed to make a representation against the enquiry report that was submitted by the enquiry officer on 20.03.2016 (Annexure-III). 9. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to formally furnish a copy of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer on 20.03.2016 (Annexure- III) pursuant to the departmental proceeding drawn against the writ petitioner vide memorandum of charge issued under memo No. ASTC/DIS/15/3391 dated 29.12.2015 within 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the respondents No. 2 shall provide reasonable time to the writ petitioner to respond to the enquiry report and on receipt of a reply from the writ petitioner, consequential order may be passed in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be served with a copy of the order to be passed by the respondent No. 2. 10. In result, the impugned order dated 10.06.2016 is hereby set aside in so far as the writ petitioner is concerned. The petitioner shall be served with a copy of the order to be passed by the respondent No. 2. 10. In result, the impugned order dated 10.06.2016 is hereby set aside in so far as the writ petitioner is concerned. The parties are directed to appear at their own cost.