ORDER 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29-9-1992 passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No. 1320 of 1988 arising out of Writ Petition No. 13266 of 1986 filed by the respondent. 2. The respondent was employed as Senior Operations Officer/AM (O) at the Madras Regional Office of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant Corporation"). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent on the basis of a charge-sheet dated 21-1-1985, relating to reimbursement towards medical claims obtained by the respondent. Out of the three charges which were levelled against the respondent, the Inquiry Officer found Charges Nos. I and 3 as proved while Charge No. 2 was found not proved. After considering the report of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority, i.e., General Manager (Supplies) agreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and issued a show-cause notice on 23-9-1985, proposing the punishment of removal from service and requiring the respondent to show cause why the said punishment be not imposed on him. In response to the said show-cause a notice, the respondent submitted his reply. After considering the said reply the order dated 21-1-1986 was passed whereby the respondent was dismissed from service. The appeal filed by the respondent against the said order was dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 23-10- 1986. Thereafter, the respondent filed the writ petition which has given rise to this appeal. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge (Mohan J., as the learned Judge then was) by judgment dated 16-9-1988. The learned Single Judge was of the view that since in the show-cause notice the respondent had been required to show cause against the imposition of the proposed penalty of removal from service and he had made his submissions on the said show- cause notice on that basis, a higher punishment of dismissal from service could not be imposed on the respondent. The order dated 21-1- 1986 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service was, therefore, set aside and it was directed that the matter should proceed from the stage of the second show-cause notice. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed in appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment. 3. The order dated 21-1- 1986 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service was, therefore, set aside and it was directed that the matter should proceed from the stage of the second show-cause notice. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed in appeal by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment. 3. We have heard the learned Additional Solicitor General in support of the appeal and Shri Murlidhar, the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. It has been submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that there is no requirement of issuing a second show-cause notice under the relevant rules made by the appellant Corporation and that the error in mentioning the proposed penalty in the show-cause notice is of no consequence and does not vitiate the order of dismissal that was passed by a the disciplinary authority. The High Court has not accepted the contention that it was not necessary to issue a second show-cause notice under the relevant rules. We do not propose to go into the question whether under the rules it was necessary to issue asecond show-cause notice or not. Even if the rules did not so require there was nothing to preclude the disciplinary authority from issuing a show-cause notice. Such a notice, if issued, cannot be held to be non est. Since a show-cause notice was issued by the appellant Corporation requiring the respondent to show cause against the imposition of the penalty of removal from service, the respondent was only required to make his submissions with regard to the imposition of the proposed penalty of removal from service. In these circumstances, the disciplinary authority erred in imposing the higher punishment of dismissal from service on the respondent. 5. Since the respondent was aware that the penalty of removal was proposed against him and he had the opportunity to make his submissions against the said penalty and he availed of that opportunity, it cannot be said that he would suffer any prejudice if the penalty that has been imposed on the respondent under the order dated 21-1-1986 is altered from dismissal to removal from service and the order dated 21 - I - 1986 is read as an order imposing the penalty of removal from service. In modification of the judgment of the High Court, we direct that the order dated 21-1-1986, shall a be read as imposing the penalty of removal from service on the respondent and the said penalty will be operative from the date of the passing of the said order, i.e., 21-1-1986. 6. Shri Murlidhar has submitted that in view of the order of dismissal from service the appellant has not been able to secure any other employment since then. He has also pointed out that during the course of arguments before the Division Bench of the High Court it was suggested on behalf of the appellant Corporation that the respondent may be paid subsistence allowance during the period of pendency of the matter in the High Court. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would meet the ends of justice if the appellant Corporation makes an ex gratia payment of Rs 2,00,000 to the respondent. The said amount shall be paid within three months. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Special Leave Petition (C) No.... (CC No. 24098 of J994) 7. Delay condoned. 8. We have heard Shri Murlidhar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of the petition. We do not find any merit in this petition and the special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed.