JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. D.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 1.3.2013 passed by the respondent no.4 whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of stoppage of annual increment for six months in Departmental Proceeding which is equivalent to one black mark. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as constable and joined on the said post on 16.2.1982 in the district of Dumka. It is stated that while the petitioner was posted at Police Line,Dhanbad in the month of July,2012 the petitioner has been served with memo of charge issued vide memo no. 4627 dated 26.7.2012 wherein it has been alleged that while the petitioner was posted at the police line on 21.6.2012 one Guria Khatoon wife of Abdul Matin Ansari had made a complaint against the petitioner. In the complaint it is alleged that the petitioner has taken thumb impression on a blank paper from Guria Khatoon wife of Abdul Matin Ansari and name of one accused namely Md. Gurfan @ Gule has been deleted on it and another complaint was made being Jorapokhar P.S Case No. 141 of 2012 under different sections of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to that charge, Enquiry Officer was appointed and departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Mr. D.K.Dubey learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 27.1.2013 complainant Guria Khatoon had appeared before the Conducting Officer and gave her statement stating therein that she had not given any application in the hand of the petitioner nor she was knowing to him and she was appearing for the first time before the Conducting Officer and she has not complained against the petitioner. Mr. D.K.Dubey has referred to annexure-4 to the writ petition, which is a thumb impression of the complainant, wherein she had stated that she was not knowing the petitioner and she had no grievance against this petitioner. On the basis of the statement, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is nothing against this petitioner how the Enquiry Officer found the charge proved against this petitioner. He further submits that enquiry report was supplied to him along with 2nd show notice. On the basis of the statement, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is nothing against this petitioner how the Enquiry Officer found the charge proved against this petitioner. He further submits that enquiry report was supplied to him along with 2nd show notice. On that ground he submits that punishment, which is inflicted upon the petitioner, is major in nature and it is fit to be quashed. He has relied on the decision in the case of Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad Vs. B.Karunakar and Ors reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 . He has referred to paragraph 30 of the said judgment. 4. 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. The petitioner has not been able to point out what prejudice has been caused to him due to non supply of enquiry report. Moreover, Mr. Dubey admitted that enquiry report has been supplied along with Second show cause. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submits that on the blank paper her thumb impression was taken and she had stated in the complaint petition that it was not explained to her and later on she came to know that complaint has not been lodged against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the State submits that earlier statement of the complainant has been taken under coercion. 6. On perusing of the inquiry report this court finds that Enquiry Officer has taken into consideration two complaints which were brought on record in the writ petition and subsequently at Counter affidavit and the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that under coercion for obtaining the statement in favour of the petitioner cannot be ruled out and on that basis he held the petitioner guilty. The petitioner is a member of discipline force and nature of the allegation is made in the charge sheet is serious in nature .This court finds that there is no illegality in the inquiry report and consequently punishment order is also in accordance with law. No case is made out to interfere with the inquiry report as well as the impugned order. No case is made out to interfere with the inquiry report as well as the impugned order. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed.