JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 31.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.117/2011 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said petition preferred by the appellant herein – original petitioner and has not interfered with the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority of dismissal confirmed by the Appellate Authority, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 2. The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal in nutshell are as under: 2.1 That the appellant herein – original petitoner was appointed as Accounts Officer on 17.05.2001 under the respondent – Indian Oil Corporation. After being confirmed in service with effect from 11.06.2002, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager by an order dated 08.04.2005. 2.2. That a Departmental Chargesheet was issued on 30.04.2008 under Rule 26 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1980”) of the Corporation. The charges in nutshell were that while the original petitioner was working as Accounts Officer / Assistant Manager (F) in the Gujarat State Office, in connivance with other Officers of the Corporation, particularly one Shri Anil Kumar Joshi, he released fraudulent payments to M/s. Bhavik Bulk Carriers amounting to Rs.3,43,040/- by cheque. The payment was wrongly approved by the original petitioner without any bill or claim from the party. The second charge also pertained to such fraudulent payment to the same party without corresponding balance in the party account. Charges 3 and 4 of the Articles of Charge pertained to such fraudulent payments amounting to Rs.4,03,363/- and Rs.2,28,181 in favour of M/s. Shree Ram Enterprise. 2.3. That the original petitioner replied to the charge sheet. After due consideration of such a reply, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer, by his report dated 30.12.2008 recorded findings after detailed consideration of the charges and the evidence on record, holding the charges as proved. The Inquiry Officer’s Report was supplied to the original petitioner by a communication dated 25.01.2009. By the aforesaid communication, the original petitioner was given an opportunity to make a representation against the findings of the Inquiry Officer. To such communication, the original petitioner accordingly made a representation on the Inquiry Officer’s Report on 19.02.2009. 2.4. The Inquiry Officer’s Report was supplied to the original petitioner by a communication dated 25.01.2009. By the aforesaid communication, the original petitioner was given an opportunity to make a representation against the findings of the Inquiry Officer. To such communication, the original petitioner accordingly made a representation on the Inquiry Officer’s Report on 19.02.2009. 2.4. That by an order dated 24.04.2009, the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. By an order dated 24.04.2009, after considering the representation dated 19.02.2009 made by the original petitioner against the findings of the Inquiry Officer, and recording submissions of the original petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority rejected the contentions. Having considered the fact that the Inquiry Officer had given ample opportunity to defend, the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. After due application of mind and taking into consideration the gravity of the acts of misconduct committed by the original petitioner, the original petitioner was inflicted upon with a penalty of dismissal. 2.5. That aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the original petitioner approached the Appellate Authority by filing an Appeal on 23.06.2009. The memo of the appeal has been placed on record at annexure ‘S’ to the petition. Apart from challenging the legality and validity of the departmental proceedings on merits, it was case of the appellant herein – original petitioner that the decision was not proportionate and that a heavy penalty of dismissal was inflicted upon him. 2.6. That the Appellate Authority, by its order dated 18.12.2009, having considered the findings of the Inquiry Officer, which were concurred by the Disciplinary Authority, and having applied its mind and specifically observing that since no new facts or circumstances have been brought about by the original petitioner, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 2.7 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, the appellant herein – original petitioner preferred Special Civil Application before the learned Single Judge. Before the learned Single Judge following submissions were made and following contentions were raised. “(a) That the order of punishment violated the principles of natural justice and also violated the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Before the learned Single Judge following submissions were made and following contentions were raised. “(a) That the order of punishment violated the principles of natural justice and also violated the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Placing reliance on Rules, 1980, it was the contention of the learned Advocate for the original petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority had not called for his explanation qua the quantum of punishment. (b) That no reasons were assigned in the orders impugned in the petition, namely, the order of dismissal and the order of rejection of appeal. Both the orders were non speaking orders. Support of Rule 38(2) was taken to contend that the Appellate Authority is required to consider the findings of the Inquiry Officer and come to its independent conclusion. (c) That the order of dismissal and that of the Appellate Authority violated the principles of natural justice, in as much as, the copy of the preliminary inquiry / Vigilance Inquiry Report, though asked for, were not supplied to the petitioner. (d) No loss was caused to the Corporation, as the co-delinquent Mr.Joshi and Mr. P.B.Saini, had deposited an amount of Rs.71.65 lakhs and Rs.8.60 lakhs with the respondent authority. (e) That the statement made by the original petitioner before the Vigilance Officer was taken under coercion while the appellant herein – original petitioner was made to admit his guilt.” 3. The petition was vehemently opposed by the learned Counsel appearing on behlaf of the Corporation. While supporting the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority confirmed by the Appellate Authority, it was submitted that the orders are well reasoned orders and when submissions / contentions raised by the appellant herein – original petitioner were dealt with in the order of penalty and the order of appeal. 3.1 It was also further pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for Corporation that there was no violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, there was no rule required the authority to furnish the copies of the preliminary inquiry and the vigilance report. It was submitted that even otherwise the original petitioner had not been able to point out as to what prejudice was caused to him by not furnishing the copies of the same. It was submitted that even otherwise the original petitioner had not been able to point out as to what prejudice was caused to him by not furnishing the copies of the same. 3.2 It was further submitted on behalf of the Corporation that as the Inquiry Officer had come to the right conclusion after having considered the entire evidence. That the Disciplinary Authority had concurred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and therefore, was not bound to give any further reasons. 3.3. Having considered the material on record and considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, by impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant herein – original petitioner and has not interfered with the order of penalty of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, further confirmed by the Appellate Authority while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. 4. Shri Sandip Shah, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. He has reiterated what was submitted before the learned Single Judge. The submissions are reproduced hereinabove. Over and above the submissions made before the learned Single Judge, Shri Shah, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. S.K. Kapoor reported in (2011) 4 SCC 589 in support hos submission that order passed by the Disciplinary Authority can be said to be against the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the preliminary inquiry report as well as the vigilance report were not supplied. 5. Heard Shri Shah, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein – original petitioner at length. We have perused and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. We have also considered the material on record including the inquiry report, order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. 5. Heard Shri Shah, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein – original petitioner at length. We have perused and considered the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. We have also considered the material on record including the inquiry report, order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. 5.1 At the outset it is required to be noted that the appellant herein – original petitioner was chargesheeted for the misconduct of various financial irregularities committed by him in connivance with other Officers. The said charge has been held to be proved in a departmental proceedings. The finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer are on appreciation of evidence on record. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority has concurred with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and thereafter, after giving the opportunity to the appellant herein – original petitioner, the order of dismissal has been passed which has been further confirmed by the Appellate Authority and thereafter by the learned Single Judge by impugned judgment and order. It is mainly contended on behalf of the appellant herein – original petitioner that the order of dismissal / order / order passed by the Disciplinary Authority was in breach of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the preliminary inquiry report and the vigilance report were not supplied / given to the appellant herein – original petitioner. However, it is required to be noted that the supply of the copy of the preliminary inquiry report was necessary as it was only to decide and assess whether it would be necessary to take any disciplinary action against the Delinquent Officer. As observed hereinabove as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Nigam vs. State of M.P. reported in (1996) 11 SCC 599 , it is not necessary to supply the copy of the preliminary inquiry report as it is only to decide and assess whether it would be necessary to take any disciplinary action against the Delinquent Officer and it does not form any foundation for passing the order of dismissal against the employee. Therefore, nonsupply of preliminary inquiry report does not vitiate the order of dismissal and therefore, on nonsupply of the preliminary inquiry report the order of dismissal cannot be said to be in breach of principles of natural justice. Therefore, nonsupply of preliminary inquiry report does not vitiate the order of dismissal and therefore, on nonsupply of the preliminary inquiry report the order of dismissal cannot be said to be in breach of principles of natural justice. Similarly, nonsupply of the vigilance report also does not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings and the ultimate order of dismissal. It is an admitted position that the Disciplinary Authority in the present case has not relied on the vigilance report in the departmental inquiry and therefore, supply of the same to the original petitioner was not obligatory as per the catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, only those documents which are relied upon in the departmental inquiry are required to be supplied. In the present case the charge of misconduct is held to be proved on the basis of the material on record, the copies of which were supplied to the Delinquent Officer. Under the circumstances, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Kapoor (Supra) relied upon by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein – original petitioner shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 5.2 At this stage it is required to be noted that the Delinquent Officer in his initial statements before the concerned Officer admitted the charge and infact he gave his own statements. The concerned Officer before whom such statements were made viz. Shri B.K. Roy came to be cross-examined and he specifically denied having any pressure or duress on the delinquent. The submission on behalf of the Delinquent that the statement was obtained under coercion and/or duress has been dealt with by the learned Single Judge in para 13 of the judgment. We concur with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge on the aforesaid. 5.3. Now, the submission on behalf of the appellant herein – original petitioner that no separate findings are recorded by the Disciplinary Authority is concerned, it is required to be noted that when the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, thereafter there was no such requirement of giving further reasons / findings considering Rule 32 of the Rules, 1980 only in a case of disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer on any charge, the Disciplinary Authority is required to record the reasons for such disagreement. Under the circumstances, there is no substance so far as the aforesaid submission is concerned. Each and every submission of the appellant herein – original petitioner has been considered and dealt with by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned well reasoned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. No interference of this Court is called for. 6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, there is no substance in the present Letters Patent Appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.