JUDGMENT : Sujoy Paul, A.C.J. Mr. Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel representing Sri B.Vara Prasada Rao, learned counsel for the appellants. Mr. A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. This intra Court appeal takes exception to the order dated 20.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.5141 of 2013. Brief facts of the case: 4. The brief facts for adjudication of this matter are that the respondent (writ petitioner) was initially appointed on daily wage basis in November, 1982. She was regularized as Helper (Technical) with effect from 01.11.1988. She is a physically handicapped person having 55% disability. She rendered thirty years of service with appellant No.2 – department (hereinafter referred to as, “the department”). The department issued a show cause notice dated 17.07.2012 to the respondent asking her explanation on the ground that the School Transfer Certificate produced by her was not genuine. Thereafter, a charge sheet dated 04.08.2012 containing similar charge was issued to her. The respondent filed her reply on 14.08.2012 and denied the charge in toto. Dissatisfied with the reply of the respondent, the department instituted domestic enquiry and appointed an Enquiry Officer. After completion of the enquiry, the respondent was served with an order of punishment of removal from service dated 25.11.2012. The respondent, without preferring an appeal, approached this Court by filing the writ petition. 5. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 20.06.2023, interfered with the punishment order on twin grounds. The first reason is that the Enquiry Officer’s report was not supplied to the respondent before imposition of the punishment. Thus, by placing reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 , the punishment was held to be illegal. Secondly, in paragraph 18 of the impugned order, it was held that the case of the prosecution was based on a communication dated 20.06.2012 sent by the Head Master, wherein the genuineness of the certificate issued to the petitioner was called in question. Since the said Head Master did not enter the witness box to prove the contents of the document dated 20.06.2012, the said document cannot become the reason to hold the respondent as guilty. Contentions of the appellants: 6. Learned counsel for the appellants raised two-fold submissions. Since the said Head Master did not enter the witness box to prove the contents of the document dated 20.06.2012, the said document cannot become the reason to hold the respondent as guilty. Contentions of the appellants: 6. Learned counsel for the appellants raised two-fold submissions. Firstly, by placing reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in B.Karunakar (supra), it is submitted that mere non-supply of the enquiry report will not vitiate the domestic enquiry. In the event such report was not supplied, it could be supplied in the Court and, in turn, the delinquent employee would have been asked to show the prejudice in not getting the enquiry report. Straightaway setting aside the disciplinary proceedings on account of non-supply of enquiry report is not permissible in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in B.Karunakar (supra). Secondly, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908 , wherein various previous judgments have been considered, it is submitted that the writ Court cannot sit as an appellate Court to reweigh or reappreciate the evidence. Only in cases of serious procedural impropriety which causes serious prejudice to the other side, the interference can be made. The sufficiency of evidence cannot be the subject matter of judicial review. Thus, the learned Single Judge has erred in interfering with the punishment on the ground that the concerned witness/Head Master did not enter the witness box and proved the document. Stand of the respondent: 7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order of the learned Single Judge and placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325] 8. The learned counsel for the parties have confined their arguments to the extent indicated above and no other point is pressed. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. Findings: 10. So far the first contention regarding the effect of non-supply of the enquiry report is concerned, we find substantial force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned Single Judge has reproduced the relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.Karunakar (supra). Findings: 10. So far the first contention regarding the effect of non-supply of the enquiry report is concerned, we find substantial force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned Single Judge has reproduced the relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B.Karunakar (supra). A careful reading of the said paragraph itself shows that only after furnishing the enquiry report and asking the delinquent employee to show the prejudice, if the Court comes to the conclusion that non-furnishing made any difference in the result of the case, it can set aside the punishment. In other words, the dicta of the Constitution Bench shows that mere non-supply of the enquiry report will not always result into setting aside the punishment. Instead, the enquiry report needs to be supplied to the delinquent employee and he is required to establish the prejudice being caused to him because of non-supply. In the absence thereof, mechanically and technically the punishment orders cannot be interfered with merely because the enquiry report was not supplied. The relevant paragraph reads thus: “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. 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…” 11. Thus, for this reason, the order of the learned Single Judge to that extent cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. 12. The second point on which interference has been made, in our opinion, goes to the root of the matter. The only charge against the respondent reads thus: “ ARTICLE OF CHARGE: That Smt. G.Sabitha, Helper (T), ALMU, NIMS, Hyderabad has submitted false School Transfer certificate and get employment in APVCC . 13. The respondent, in turn, filed her reply, which reads thus: “Hyderabad, 14.8.2012. To The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Vikalangula Co-operative Corporation, Hyderabad. Respected Sir, Sub:- APVCC –Estt. – Public Services – Disciplinary action under Rules 74 of Service Bye Laws of the Employees of APVCC and under Rule 20 of APCS (CC & A) Rules, 1991 – Charge Memo issued – Explanation submitted – Reg. Ref: Rc.No.1052/2012/ESTT, dated 4.8.2012. * * With reference to your letter referred to above I received Charge Memo issued by you, framing a charge that I submitted a false school transfer certificate and get employment in APVCC. I am herewith submitting explanation to the charge leveled against me. I respectfully submit that I am a physically handicapped person and I entered into the service of AP Vikalangula Co-operative Corporation on consolidated pay in the year 1982. I submit that till then I am discharging my duties to the utmost satisfaction of my superiors without any blemish or any remark whatsoever. I submit that when I was asked to submit the proof of date of submitted the School Transfer Certificate issued by the Head Master, Primary School, Maheswaram, Ameerpet, R.R. District. I submit that I hails from Ameerpet Village of Maheswaram Mandal, R.R.District. I submit that when I was asked to submit the proof of date of submitted the School Transfer Certificate issued by the Head Master, Primary School, Maheswaram, Ameerpet, R.R. District. I submit that I hails from Ameerpet Village of Maheswaram Mandal, R.R.District. I submit that I studied upto 5th class at the Primary School Ameerpet of Maheswaram Panchayat Sumithy, Ranga Reddy District and to that effect I obtained certificate of transfer from the concerned Headmaster on 9.10.1984.1 submit that the then Headmaster Issued the said certificate with the seal of the Primary School and as such I submitted the same to you Sir for your kind perusal for sake of my date of birth. I submit that it is mentioned In the Charge Memo that the Head Master, Ameerpet issued letter stating that the TC submitted by me is found not correct. I submit that I have also gone through the letter issued by the Head Master dated 20.6.2012 stating that verified with school records and found not correct and when he was not worked in the school. In fact I studied in the said school between 1970 to 1975 and I also passed 5 th class. In case of non availability of certain records during such period the present Head Master might have been issued such letter stating that found not correct as he was not worked there. The Head Master categorically issued Transfer Certificate dated 9.10.1984 with school seal with all particulars. I submit that as I belong to area in which I born and studied in the Primary School, Ameerpet rightly issued the Transfer Certificate by the concerned Head Master. Hence the Certificate of Transfer issued by the then concerned Head Master is genuine and the same may be considered for my educational qualification as well as my date of birth. I submit that with reference to your letter referred to above issued a Charge Memo dated 4.8.2012 with the following Charge. Article of Charge: That Smt. G.Sabitha, Helper (T), ALMU, NIMS, Hyderabad has submitted false School Transfer Certificate and get employment in APVCC. I submit that I hereby deny the charge leveled against me in Charge Memo dated 4.8.2012 for the reasons stated supra. I submit that Secured job in APVCC by producing all genuine documents of my qualifications and eligibility. Article of Charge: That Smt. G.Sabitha, Helper (T), ALMU, NIMS, Hyderabad has submitted false School Transfer Certificate and get employment in APVCC. I submit that I hereby deny the charge leveled against me in Charge Memo dated 4.8.2012 for the reasons stated supra. I submit that Secured job in APVCC by producing all genuine documents of my qualifications and eligibility. I submit that at present I am discharging my duties as helper (T), ALMU, NIMS, APVCC, Hyderabad to the utmost satisfaction of my superiors. I submit that for the reasons and explanation submitted supra the Charge leveled against me in the reference may kindly be dropped and pass appropriate orders for which I am ever grateful to you sir. Yours sincerely, Sd/- (G.SABITHA) Helper (T), ALMU, NIMS, APVCC, Hyderabad.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. The reply shows that the respondent did not accept the report of the Head Master dated 20.06.2012 on the basis of which the charge sheet has been issued. Admittedly, as per the case of the prosecution, pursuant to the letter of the Managing Director of the appellant No.2 dated 02.04.2012, the Head Master, P.S.Ameerpet, wrote a letter dated 20.06.2012 informing that on verification of the school records, it was found that the School Transfer Certificate submitted by the respondent was not correct. The charge is wholly based on this document dated 20.06.2012. The learned Single Judge opined that unless the said witness/Head Master enters the witness box and prove the document, it cannot form part of evidence. The finding of the learned Single Judge reads thus: “18. It is also relevant to mention here that the respondent corporation initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner solely basing on the report furnished by the Headmaster dated 20.06.2012 without conducting any other enquiry and the respondent corporation has not examined the genuinity of the certificate produced by the petitioner by examining the person who issued a particular certificate. They are not disputing the signature of the person who issued the particular certificate and the respondent corporation has not summoned the original record from the School. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that in the absence of any enquiry, contra evidence, imposed major punishment solely basing on the letter furnished by the Headmaster dated 12.06.2012 and the same is contrary to law.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that in the absence of any enquiry, contra evidence, imposed major punishment solely basing on the letter furnished by the Headmaster dated 12.06.2012 and the same is contrary to law.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. The pivotal question is whether in a departmental enquiry, the said document, which was the crucial document for the prosecution to prove its case, could have been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer. The said document was required to be exhibited and should have been proved by the maker of the document. In our opinion, this point is no more res integra. In the recent judgment in Satyendra Singh (supra), the Apex Court considered its previous judgments in the cases of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 and poignantly held as under: “ 14. In the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National bank ( (2009) 2 SCC 570 , this Court held that mere production of documents is not enough, contents of documentary evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses. Relevant extract thereof reads as under:— “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents . The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on  the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left. … 19. The judgment and decree passed against the respondent in Narinder Mohan Arya case [ (2006) 4 SCC 713 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 840] had attained finality. In the said suit, the enquiry report in the disciplinary proceeding was considered, the same was held to have been based on no evidence. The appellant therein in the aforementioned situation filed a writ petition questioning the validity of the disciplinary proceeding, the same was dismissed. This Court held that when a crucial finding like forgery was arrived at on evidence which is non est in the eye of the law, the civil court would have jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. This Court emphasised that a finding can be arrived at by the enquiry officer if there is some evidence on record. …” (Emphasis supplied)” 16. In view of this judgment, there is no cavil of doubt that even in the departmental enquiry which is quasi judicial in nature, the prosecution cannot base its case solely on the basis of a document which has not been admitted by the other side. If the prosecution intended to prove that document, allegedly sent by the Head Master, the only course open was to summon the Head Master so that he enters the witness box to exhibit the document and is subjected to cross examination by defence. In the absence thereof, in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi (supra) and Satyendra Singh (supra), the said document, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be a valid piece of evidence. Thus, minus this document, the prosecution’s case is like a house of cards. In the absence thereof, in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi (supra) and Satyendra Singh (supra), the said document, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be a valid piece of evidence. Thus, minus this document, the prosecution’s case is like a house of cards. The said document, in the absence of its authentication by the maker by entering the witness box, falls within the ambit of “no evidence”. Even as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhupendra Singh (supra) on which learned counsel for the appellants has placed heavy reliance, the writ Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere in a case of “no evidence”. Thus, the learned Single Judge has taken a plausible view which is in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court. Thus, on this account, no interference is warranted. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed . No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.