JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant’s petition assailing imposition of penalty of forfeiture of his two years’ service permanently for the purpose of future increments has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved, the instant letters patent appeal has been instituted by him. 2. Facts:- 2(i). The appellant was posted in the security duty alongwith other personnel at the residence of the then Hon’ble Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh on 18.02.2002. He was assigned sentry duty at Post No.3. On that day, an intruder breached the security, entered the compound, covered some distance and escaped un-apprehended. 2(ii). A preliminary inquiry was conducted in the matter to order to establish misconduct. On receipt of the preliminary inquiry report, a joint regular departmental inquiry was ordered against the -appellant and some other officials deployed in the security duty. 2(iii). The inquiry proceedings were held. The appellant participated in the inquiry. The inquiry officer submitted his report holding the delinquent officials guilty of charges. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of inquiry officer. Show cause notice was served upon the appellant for forfeiture of his seven years’ service permanently for the purpose of future increments. On consideration of the entire material, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 27.10.2002, found the appellant guilty of negligence amounting to grave dereliction of duty and professional incompetency, however, taking lenient view of the matter two years of appellant’s service were forfeited permanently for the purpose of his future increments. 2(iv). The appellant preferred appeal against the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority rejected the appeal vide speaking order passed on 02.09.2003. The revision petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Additional Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh under a detailed order passed on 10.06.2004. The mercy appeal preferred by the appellant was also turned down by the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh on 16.12.2004. In the aforesaid background, the appellant instituted the original application before the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal seeking quashing of the orders dated 16.12.2004 passed by the Director General of Police, H.P. confirming the orders dated 10.06.2004 and 02.09.2003, imposing penalty of forfeiture of two years of appellant’s service permanently for the purpose of increments. Learned Single Judge did not find merit in the petition. The same was dismissed on 21.02.2011. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present letters patent appeal. 3. Learned Single Judge did not find merit in the petition. The same was dismissed on 21.02.2011. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present letters patent appeal. 3. The only points raised by learned counsel for the appellant are that :- (i) the copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the appellant, which has vitiated entire inquiry proceedings and consequent orders passed thereupon ; (ii) the penalty imposed upon the appellant was disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. 4. The above points raised by the appellant are being discussed hereinafter:- 4(i). Non-supply of inquiry report:- Insofar as alleged non-supply of copy of the inquiry report is concerned, we find that the ground is factually incorrect. In reply to para 6(i) of the original application, the respondents have categorically stated that the appellant was given copy of the inquiry report. No rejoinder controverting this averment has been filed by the appellant. The appellant had preferred appeal, revision and mercy appeal against the imposition of penalty upon him. He had objected to the findings returned by the inquiry officer in his report. This presupposes that he had the copy of inquiry report. The appellant had participated in the inquiry proceedings. He was afforded due opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and to lead his evidence. During hearing, learned counsel for the appellant did not even contend infraction of any procedure in conduct of the inquiry proceedings. Even otherwise, it is well settled that non supply of inquiry report is in breach of natural justice but failure to supply inquiry report to the delinquent official would not ipso facto result in declaring the proceedings being null and void. It is for the delinquent employee to plead and prove that non-supply of inquiry report caused prejudice to him and resulted in miscarriage of justice. If he is unable to satisfy the Court on that point, the order of punishment cannot automatically be set aside [re: Haryana Financial Corporation and another Versus Kailash Chandra Ahuja, (2008) 9 SCC 31 ]. In (2018) 1 SCC 231 Uttrakhand Transport Corporation and others Vs. Sukhveer Singh, the High Court had relied upon (1993) 4 SCC 727 ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that reasonable opportunity was denied to the employee by not furnishing the inquiry report alongwith show-cause notice. In (2018) 1 SCC 231 Uttrakhand Transport Corporation and others Vs. Sukhveer Singh, the High Court had relied upon (1993) 4 SCC 727 ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar and set aside the dismissal order on the ground that reasonable opportunity was denied to the employee by not furnishing the inquiry report alongwith show-cause notice. The Apex Court set aside the judgment of the High Court on the ground of no prejudice having been caused to the delinquent and held as under :- “7. …….. Though, it was necessary for the Appellants to have supplied the report of the inquiry officer before issuance of the show cause notice proposing penalty, we find no reason to hold that the Respondent was prejudiced by supply of the inquiry officer’s report along with the show cause notice. This is not a case where the delinquent was handicapped due to the inquiry officer’s report not being furnished to him at all.” 8. In ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. (supra) this Court, while considering the effect on the order of punishment when the report of the inquiry officer was not furnished to the employee and the relief to which the delinquent employee is entitled, held as under: “30….[v] ……..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. 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. 9. The question of the relief to be granted in cases where the report of the inquiry officer was not supplied to the delinquent employee came up for consideration of this Court in Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja in which it was held as follows: 21. From the ratio laid down in B. Karunakar [ (1993) 4 SCC 727 ] it is explicitly clear that the doctrine of natural justice requires supply of a copy of the inquiry officer's report to the delinquent if such inquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority. It is also clear that non-supply of report of the inquiry officer is in the breach of natural justice. But it is equally clear that failure to supply a report of the inquiry officer to the delinquent employee would not ipso facto result in the proceedings being declared null and void and the order of punishment non est and ineffective. It is for the delinquent employee to plead and prove that non-supply of such report had caused prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice. If he is unable to satisfy the court on that point, the order of punishment cannot automatically be set aside.” After a detailed examination of the law on the subject, this Court concluded as follows: 44. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that though supply of report of the inquiry officer is part and parcel of natural justice and must be furnished to the delinquent employee, failure to do so would not automatically result in quashing or setting aside of the order or the order being declared null and void. For that, the delinquent employee has to show “prejudice”. Unless he is able to show that non-supply of report of the inquiry officer has resulted in prejudice or miscarriage of justice, an order of punishment cannot be held to be vitiated. For that, the delinquent employee has to show “prejudice”. Unless he is able to show that non-supply of report of the inquiry officer has resulted in prejudice or miscarriage of justice, an order of punishment cannot be held to be vitiated. And whether prejudice had been caused to the delinquent employee depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. 10. It is clear from the above that mere non-supply of the inquiry report does not automatically warrant re-instatement of the delinquent employee. It is incumbent upon on the delinquent employee to plead and prove that he suffered a serious prejudice due to the non-supply of the inquiry report. We have examined the writ petition filed by the Respondent and we find no pleading regarding any prejudice caused to the Respondent by the non-supply of the inquiry report prior to the issuance of the show cause notice. The Respondent had ample opportunity to submit his version after perusing the report of the inquiry officer. The Respondent utilised the opportunity of placing his response to the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority. The High Court committed an error in allowing the writ petition filed by the Respondent without examining whether any prejudice was caused to the delinquent employee by the supply of the inquiry officer’s report along with the show cause notice. We are satisfied that there was no prejudice caused to the respondent by the supply of the report of the inquiry officer along with the show cause notice. Hence, no useful purpose will be served by a remand to the court below to examine the point of prejudice. 11. The Respondent contended that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the delinquency. It is submitted that he was working as a driver and the irregularity in issuance of tickets was committed by the conductor. We are in agreement with the findings of the inquiry officer which were accepted by the disciplinary authority and approved by the appellate authority and the labour court that the Respondent had committed the misconduct in collusion with the conductor. It is no more res integra that acts of corruption/misappropriation cannot be condoned, even in cases where the amount involved is meagre. (See - UPSRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma (2016) 6 SCC 555)”. It is no more res integra that acts of corruption/misappropriation cannot be condoned, even in cases where the amount involved is meagre. (See - UPSRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma (2016) 6 SCC 555)”. From the facts of instant case, as observed earlier, supply of inquiry report to the appellant can be safely inferred. Even otherwise, appellant has not proved any prejudice caused to him by the alleged non supply of inquiry report. The point is answered accordingly against the appellant. 4(II). Disproportionate penalty:- In Civil Appeal No. 2707 of 2022, decided by Hon’ble Apex Court on 20.04.2022 (Anil Kumar Upadhyay Vs. The Director General, SSB and others), learned Single Judge had interfered with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority inter-alia on the ground that the same was disproportionate to the charges and set it aside. The Division Bench of the High Court restored the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The question before the Hon’ble Apex Court inter-alia was whether the learned Single Judge was justified in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on the ground of same being disproportionate in the facts of the case where delinquent official was charged with indiscipline and misconduct leading to compromising security of occupants of ‘Mahila Barrack’. It was observed that when disciplinary authority considered it appropriate to punish him with penalty of ‘removal from service’, which is confirmed by the appellate authority, thereafter it was not open for the learned Single Judge to interfere with the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. Relying upon (2001) 2 SCC 386 Om Kumar Vs. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, (2013) 12 SCC 372 Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Rajendra Singh, it was held that question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for disciplinary authority and jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 of Constitution or of Administrative Tribunals is limited and is confined to applicability of ‘Wednesbury principles.’ When a statute gave discretion to an administrator to take a decision, scope of judicial review would remain limited. Interference with punishment order on ground of disproportionate to the charges was not permissible unless punishment imposed was shocking to the conscience of the Court. Interference with punishment order on ground of disproportionate to the charges was not permissible unless punishment imposed was shocking to the conscience of the Court. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the appellant was deployed to guard the official residence of the then Hon’ble Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh. It is also an admitted position that a person breached the security, entered the official residence and escaped without being apprehended. He was not even given a chase. It was a case of serious dereliction of duty on the part of the appellant. The appellant was deputed for discharging very sensitive duty. He was found utterly negligent. Such negligence cannot be overlooked. The disciplinary authority had proposed imposing penalty of forfeiture of seven years of service of the appellant permanently for the purpose of increments, however, taking a lenient view of the matter, only two years of appellant’s service were forfeited permanently for the purpose of future increments. All the authorities i.e. the appellate authority, the revisional authority and the Director General of Police, H.P. while deciding appeal, revision and mercy appeal of the appellant, have considered the matter in detail and passed speaking orders confirming the punishment imposed by disciplinary authority. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty imposed upon the appellant cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges levelled and proved against him. The point is answered accordingly against the appellant. No other point was urged. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 21.02.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.