Rajiv Sharma, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged orders dated 21st January, 2004, 9th February, 2004 and appellate order dated 23rd July, 2004.

2. Shorn of the unnecessary details, the bare facts for the adjudication of this petition are that the disciplinary proceedings were initiate against the petitioner. The copy of the inquiry report dated 22.8.2001 has been placed on record and marked as Annexure P-5. The Inquiry Officer has recorded the following findings against the petitioner as reproduced below : "FINDINGS : Charge A - That the customer had given a cheque for Rs. 30,000 to Shri. Sita Ram for taking payment on her behalf. Proved Charge B - Shri Sita Ram received the payment of the Cheque dated 13.1.200 for Rs. 30,000/-. Proved Charge C - Shri Sita Ram did not hand over the payment to the customer Proved."

3. As a sequel to the inquiry report dated 22.8.2003, the petitioner was served with show-cause (punishment) notice by the discipliner authority on 21st January, 2004. Thereafter the disciplinary authority has awarded the penalty of punishment compulsory retirement from banks service under clause 6 (C) of the bipartite settlement dated 10.4.2002 The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the imposition of the penalty awarded vide order dated 9th February, 2004 filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order 23rd July, 2004.

4. Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously contended that the initiation, continuation and culmination of the disciplinary proceedings in the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The main contention of Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate was that petitioner has not been supplied with the copy of the inquiry report dated 22.8.2003 before the imposition of penalty. Mr. Thakur has further elaborated his submission by submitting that it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to supply the petitioner with a copy of inquiry report to enable him to point out discrepancies/ shortcomings in the inquiry report before the issuance of letter dated! 21.1.2004. The disciplinary authority thereafter had to consider the representation made by the petitioner against the inquiry report and only thereafter the show-cause notice could have been issued to the petitioner.

5. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Bank strenuously contended that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by not supplying him with a copy of the inquiry report. Mr. Ramakant has also submitted that the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and alternative remedy was available to him under the Act.

6. I have heard the parties and perused the record.

7. There is substance in the submissions made by Mr. Vivek Thakur, advocate that the petitioner was entitled to receive the copy of the enquiry report dated 22.8.2003. The question whether the copy of the enquiry report is to be supplied to the delinquent or not before the position of penalty is no more res-integra in view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others v. B. Karunakar and others, (1993) 4 SCC 727. Their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court have held as under: "In Uttar Pradesh Government v. Sabir Hussain, it was held that .in the absence of furnishing the copy of the report of the enquiry officer the plaintiff had been denied a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his removal. It was also held that although Section 240(3) of the GOI Act did not cover a case of "removal", it did not mean that the protection given by the said Section did not cover the case of "removal" From the constitutional standpoint "removal" and "dismissal" stand on the same footing except as to future employment. In the context of Section 240 (3), removal and dismissal are synonymo