R. Kantha Rao, J.

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the Award in I.D. No. 14 of 1996 dated 09.02.1999 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur and consequently to direct the respondent No. 2 to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service.

2. After filing of the writ petition, S.Md. Ghouse, the petitioner died and his legal representatives came on record and they have been prosecuting the present writ petition.

3. The brief facts necessary for considering the writ petition may be stated as follows:

4. The petitioner was a driver in the respondents' Corporation. A disciplinary enquiry was held against him on the charge of attempt to commit theft of four aluminum sheets belonging to respondents' Corporation. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of two charges viz. attempting to commit theft of four aluminum sheets and not stopping the bus when asked by the security guard who noticed four aluminum sheets on the top of the bus. The disciplinary authority on receiving the enquiry report imposed the punishment of removal from service against the petitioner. Eight witnesses have been examined on behalf of the Corporation and the enquiry officer upon considering their evidence which was subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner held that the two charges have been proved against the petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. In the present writ petition it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that after receiving the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority before inflicting the punishment on the petitioner had not furnished copy of the enquiry report to him and therefore, the petitioner was prevented to offer proper explanation to the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer and therefore, the enquiry report as well as the final order passed by the disciplinary authority basing on the said report removing him from service are vitiated. It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that if really the petitioner attempted to commit theft, a criminal case would have been booked against the petitioner, but there is no criminal case as such filed against the petitioner and therefore, the enquiry officer ought not to have believed the allegation of committing theft.

7. The security guard who was examined as a witness before the enquiry officer stated in his evidence that in the first instance he allowed the bus to go out of the main gate but on noticing the aluminum sheets on the top of the bus, he signaled the driver to stop the bus, but he did not stop the bus, proceeded further and stopped the same on the platform. The evidence of the security guard as well as another witness examined on behalf of the Corporation revealed before the enquiry officer that when the driver was summoned by the officials of the respondents' Corporation through the conductor, the driver returned back but threw away the aluminum sheets into the bushes. It is basing on the aforesaid evidence and other material, the enquiry officer thoroughly convinced that the charges leveled against the petitioner have been duly proved.

8. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied on M.P. State Electricity Board v. Smt. Jarina Bee 2003 AIR SCW 3380 wherein the Supreme Court held that when the enquiry report was not furnished to the delinquent employee against whom the enquiry was held on charge of theft, the enquiry is found to be not in accordance with principles of natural justice and it is liable to be set aside and the petitioner can be reinstated into service.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied on Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd. v. Shambbu Nath Mukherjee (1984) 2 SCALE 586 wherein it was held that the appellant was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the cour