ORDER Vikram Nath, J. 1. The present appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent is filed against the judgment and order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 13964 of 2004. 2. The background of facts which has given rise to the present appeal is that the original petitioner was at the relevant point of time serving as Deputy Executive Engineer with appellants - GIDC since about 27 years. There was an execution of work of construction of 96 units of RCL - 12 Type of Quarters, as one of the several packages at Ankleshwar and the same was awarded to one M/s. J.H. Jadeja. The structure was based upon a load bearing with RCC slab resting directly on wall without putting runner beams and the entire building in question was consisting of three stories including ground floor with two flats on each floors. Such construction of Block No. 8 was unfortunately collapsed on 04.07.1995 at around 7.30 P.M. and such collapsed alleged to have been on account of such sub-standard workmanship and the original petitioner-opponent herein was on account of that placed under suspension with effect from 27.07.1995. The case of the original petitioner - opponent here was that after a lapse of four years and two months, the original petitioner was reinstated into service, but then inquiry was initiated against him by the appellant authorities. Since the same remain pending, the charge-sheet was submitted on 15.04.1997 after merely a period of two years to which a preliminary defence statement was submitted and the inquiry was proceeded. During the course of inquiry, the original petitioner agitated about non-supply of relevant documents, and thereby, deprived him from placing legitimate defence and further it was alleged that such inquiry proceedings were not impartial but then after conclusion of such inquiry, it appears that the same has resulted into passing of an order of removal after necessary formalities as per the procedure which has resulted into filing of a petition by opponent herein for challenging such order of removal, an appeal came to be filed before the appellate authority. But, it appears from the record that on 31.08.2004, the original respondent No. 1 - appellate authority was pleased to confirm the order of dismissal dated 30.08.2001. But, it appears from the record that on 31.08.2004, the original respondent No. 1 - appellate authority was pleased to confirm the order of dismissal dated 30.08.2001. The opponent herein appears to have submitted a petition before this Court challenging the order of dismissal as well as the appeal order passed against him and the same petition has come up for consideration finally before the learned Single Judge which came to be dealt with by the learned Single Judge and on 11.04.2019, the learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the impugned order of dismissal dated 30.08.2001 as well as appeal order. It is this order, which is made the subject matter of present Letters Patent Appeal before us. 3. Learned senior counsel Shri M.B. Gandhi with learned advocate Shri Chinmay M. Gandhi appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently contended that despite the fact that there was no procedural lapse committed by the appellate authority and despite the fact that having granted enough opportunity and consequentially charges having been proved, the disciplinary authority has passed an order of dismissal which ought not to have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. It has further been contended by learned senior counsel Shri Gandhi that the prejudice which has been agitated before the learned Single Judge such plea is apparently not available to the opponent herein since during the course of inquiry, it was admitted by appellate authority that twice the instruction has been offered to original petitioner, and therefore, if such opportunity is not availed of, the plea of prejudice is not open to be agitated. Learned senior counsel Shri M.B. Gandhi has further submitted that the findings arrived at by the authority against the original petitioner is based upon the overall material gathered during the course of inquiry in which full opportunity was extended to the original petitioner and the main material aspect which ought not have been unnoticed by the learned Single Judge is that the documents which were requested by the original petitioner were not forming part of the charge-sheet, and therefore, when such documents are not relied upon by the authority, there is hardly any question to be agitated about prejudice. Here is the case in which the entire Block No. 8 has been collapsed on account of such substandard work and the said work was within the domain of original petitioner to be looked after. Since the charge levelled against him is established in the inquiry, the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority is hardly to be interfered with unless there is some apparent and visible perversity is reflecting. The scope of judicial review is to the effect that, if any, procedural lapse touching to the root of controversy is visible normally what penalty is to be inflected upon is to be left it open for the disciplinary authority. The extraordinary jurisdiction, according to the learned senior counsel, may not be exercised for substitution of view on the issue of penalty. As a result of this, according to the learned senior counsel Mr. Gandhi, an error is committed, which deserves to be corrected. 4. Having heard learned senior counsel Shri M.B. Gandhi appearing on behalf of the appellants - original respondents, with a view to see that any error is crept in an order passed by the learned Single Judge, we have gone through the reasons which are assigned by the learned Single Judge. It appears prima facie that the order in question is a well reasoned order, based upon several proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court and on the basis of examination of record, it appears that a clear finding is arrived at that non-supply of relevant documents has resulted into prejudice to the appellant. It has also been found from the record by the learned Single Judge that unquestionably even the Inquiry Officer was connected with a design of block, which has collapsed and he was, on the contrary, approving authority and such officer became an Inquiry Officer and during the course of inquiry proceeding, charges have been thrusted upon the original petitioner. Hence, element of prejudice and bias is visible by the learned Single Judge. 5. Additionally, we have also noticed that the learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that Inquiry Officer, who was the approving authority of the design, has ultimately held that building had not collapsed because of faulty design but because of inferior quality of material used, and thereby safely presumed that responsibility is of the original petitioner. 5. Additionally, we have also noticed that the learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that Inquiry Officer, who was the approving authority of the design, has ultimately held that building had not collapsed because of faulty design but because of inferior quality of material used, and thereby safely presumed that responsibility is of the original petitioner. The detailed conclusion which has been arrived at by the learned Single Judge is based upon proper scrutiny, as is clearly visible from the order in question. We see no reason to interfere with the exercise of discretion on the contrary, since the original petitioner had died during the course of proceedings on 28.01.2012, the possibility of no fresh inquiry was found. As a result of this, it appears that the equity is balanced while passing the order. Accordingly, the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge are proper and we see no reason to interfere with the same. The reasons which are assigned in paragraph 13 onwards are sufficient enough to justify the order accordingly, having not projected any distinguishing feature to assail the order of learned Single Judge, we see no merit in the appeal. 6. Additionally, we found from the record that even the submission that inspections were offered to the delinquent and the same is not availed of, is not to be believed in view of fact that not only the documents were not supplied but undisputedly, it was found categorically that reliance to those documents are placed by the Inquiry Officer to prove charges against the original petitioner. Therefore, considering the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma, AIR 2018 SC 4860 , in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey, (2013) 2 SCC 740 , in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University vs. All Gujarat Kamdar Karmachari Union, AIR 2010 SC 2507 and in the case of Committee of, Kisan Degree College vs. Shambhu Saran Pandey & Ors., (1995) 1 SCC 404 , which have been relied upon, the order impugned is passed and as such also, there seems to be no infirmity. The fact that Inquiry Officer himself was a party to the framing of design and the charges have been placed as if on account of inferior material being used in the construction collapsed has taken place such questionable circumstances ought to have been allowed to be examined at length after supplying appropriate documents. Such exercise appearing to have not been done, and therefore, the plea that procedural lapse is not at all possible to be appreciated by us. The background of aforesaid facts and circumstances at length is leading to one conclusion only that there seem to be no error in passing the order by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we deem it proper to dismiss the present Letter Patent Appeal. Accordingly, present Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. 7. In view of the order passed in main matter, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.