Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner against the order of his dismissal dated 4.1994, passed by the disciplinary authority, namely, the regional Manager, Central Bank of india (Respondent No.3) and the order of the appellate authority dated 1st July, 1994 upholding the aforesaid order of dismissal, as contained in an-nexures 13 and 17, respectively. 2. It appears that on 2.4.1992 the petitioner was served with chargesheet in regard to allegation of defrauding the Chiragaon Branch of the Bank in 1985 by forging bank documents in connivance with outsiders. After a regular departmental enquiry the Inquiring Authority submitted his findings to the Disciplinary Authority on 14.12.93 whereupon the impugned order dated 22.4.94 was passed by the disciplinary Authority imposing the punishment of dismissal to the petitioner. Against the said order the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate Authority, who, after going through the entire records of the case, such as, enquiry proceedings, documentary evidences adduced in the enquiry, written brief of P. O. submissions of the charge-sheeted officer and finding of the Inquirying Authority, etc. passed the impugned order dated 1st July, 94 upholding the orders of the disciplinary Authority. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the impugned orders are bad in law, as the same have been passed in utter violation of principle of natural justice inasmuch as, besides denying the reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case, the said orders have been passed without even supplying the copy of the inquiry report and requiring him to show cause before imposition of the punishment. The learned Counsel also submitted that from the very perusal of the impugned order of dismissal, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, it would appear that no cogent reason has been assigned by him and thus the same is fit to be set aside on that ground as well. 4. It appears that before the Appellate Authority the petitioner assailed the impugned order of dismissal on the following grounds: (a) He was denied of natural justice as he was not allowed legal assistance to cross-examine the management witness the handwriting expert. (b) He was not afforded the opportunity of cross-examination. (c) He was not given the opportunity to defend his case before the disciplinary authority. 5. (b) He was not afforded the opportunity of cross-examination. (c) He was not given the opportunity to defend his case before the disciplinary authority. 5. From the very perusal of the said grounds it appears that the petitioner never assailed the impugned order of dismissal before the Appellate authority on the ground that he was not supplied with the inquiry report and/or was denied the opportunity of making show cause against the proposed punishment. Thus, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot now be allowed to raise the said objections in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Further, from the aforementioned gounds, which were raised before the Appellate Authority, it appears that the only objection for assailing the impugned order of dismissal was that he was not allowed legal assistance to cross-examine the management witness the handwriting expert or that he was not afforded the opportunity of cross-examination and defend his case before the Disciplinary authority. Nothing specific has been brought to my notice in support of the said contention. From the order of the appellate Authority I find that on consideration of the materials, available on the records, the arrived at the conclusion that the inquiry was held in a fair manner and the appellant was given reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry, inasmuch as, despite providing opportunity by the inquirying Authority the petitioner did not cross-examine the management witness. The Appellate Authority has also found that there was no legal obligation on the part of the inquirying Authority and/or the Disciplinary authority to allow the petitioner for legal assistance and further that the said point cannot be allowed to be raised, specially when no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner on account of the same. 7. It is well settled that unless the delinquent is able to satisfy that some prejudice has been caused to him on account of non-supply of the documents or non-examination of some witness, he cannot heard that he has been denied any reasonable opportunity and the order of punishment is thus, in violation of the principle of natural justice. A reference in this connection is made to the decision of the supreme Court in the case of m. D. E. C. I. L. , Hyderabad V/s. B. Karunakar, reported in [ (1993) 3 S. L. J.193]. 8. A reference in this connection is made to the decision of the supreme Court in the case of m. D. E. C. I. L. , Hyderabad V/s. B. Karunakar, reported in [ (1993) 3 S. L. J.193]. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show even in this Court as to how prejudice has been caused because of non-examination of the management witness the Handwriting Expert by him. However, refusal to cross-examine the said witness by him and merely because legal assistance was not allowed for the said purpose, particularly in the absence of any statutory obligation on the part of the management, in my opinion, he cannot be allowed to plead violation of natural justice. A reference in this connection is made to the supreme Court decision in the case of bank of India V/s. Apurba Kumar Sana, reported in 1994 (2) S. C. C.615. 9. Thus, I do not find any merit in this application and the same is dismissed. Writ Application Dismissed.