Koshy, J.

The appellant, a police constable was proceeded with departmental action for major penalty and was imposed with punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. It was alleged in the charge sheet that on 27.09.1989, the delinquent police constable while on sentry duty in Kodakara police station from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. hired an autoriksha driven by one Shaji and reached Vattekadu from where he seized some spurious liquor possessed by one Subran and the said Subran was released without registering a case and asked to come to the station next day.

2. After conducting an enquiry, the appellant was imposed with a punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect, It was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. In review petition also punishment was upheld. The learned Single Judge found that the enquiry was conducted fairly and no grounds were made out to interfere in the punishment. In fact, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the authorities if at all erred, have only erred in favour of the petitioner.

3. It is contended that punishment is liable to be set aside as copy of the enquiry report was not served on him before imposing punishment. Punishment imposed on him is only a minor punishment. It is true that in Union of India & Others vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991 (1) LLJ 29 S.C.) while considering the case of termination of service and the scope of Article 311, the Supreme Court held that if enquiry is held by an officer other than the disciplinary authority, copy of the enquiry report should be furnished to the employee and only after getting his representation, punishment can be imposed. The constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar ((1993) 4 S.C.C. 727) after evaluating all the cases held that the right of the employee to receive the report of the enquiry officer is a part of “reasonable opportunity” to defend himself. But the Court also held that Court in all cases need not interfere with the punishment imposed for not furnishing a copy of the enquiry report. But if the Court is satisfied that prejudice is caused, Court shall set aside the order. The Court, held as follows;

“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 he 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. 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.”

Court further held that the question whether in fact prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial of the report to him, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case and the principles of natural justice are not to be invoked or rights to be preferred on all sundry occasions. If no prejudice is caused interference wit