JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. The Appellant filed writ petition on the averments that he was appointed as Clerk-cum-Godown Keeper on 1-7-1969. He was promoted as J.M.G.S. 1 with effect from 1-9-1978 and confirmed in the aforesaid grade with effect from 1-9-1979. A charge-sheet was issued to the Appellant vide letter dated 2-6-1987 levelling the charge that he had engaged Shri Radheshyam Prajapati on daily wager basis at the rate of Rs. 15/- per day from 16-9-1985 up to July, 1986 of total 74 days and 201 days and Shri Dasrath Singh Ojha for total 32 days and 122 days and Shri S.K. Gupta for a period of 39 days in contravention to the circular issued by the Head Office and without any power and authority. 2. The Appellant submitted his reply and while admitting the factum of engaging the persons on daily wager basis explained the facts and circumstances why it was necessary. 3. The disciplinary authority on the basis of the admission made by him in the reply passed punishment order by withholding payment of one annual increment without cumulative effect. The departmental appeal which was preferred by the Appellant, met the same result, since it was dismissed on 22-6-1990. 4. The Appellant thereafter filed writ petition before this Court which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 5. We have heard Shri Ramji Sharma, learned Counsel for Appellant and Shri M.P. Agarwal, learned Counsel for Respondents. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We are not at all agreeing with the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that charge was not admitted by the Appellant, and therefore, it was necessary for the Bank to provide an opportunity of hearing in terms of Regulation 68(4)(1) of State Bank of Indore (Officers Services) Regulation, 1979 before passing the order of punishment. Learned Counsel for Appellant has also placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in O.K. Bhardwaj v. Union of India and Ors., (2001) 9 SCC 180 . 7. Looking to the reply filed by Appellant, we find that factum of engaging the abovesaid three persons as daily wagers has not been denied, rather it has been accepted by him. The Appellant has only explained the circumstances under which they were engaged. 7. Looking to the reply filed by Appellant, we find that factum of engaging the abovesaid three persons as daily wagers has not been denied, rather it has been accepted by him. The Appellant has only explained the circumstances under which they were engaged. The factum of obtaining prior permission to engage them, admittedly, has not been obtained. In the reply also the Appellant has not so stated. In these state of affairs, according to us, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority did not commit any error in holding the charge to be proved against the Appellant and thereby imposing penalty of withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect. The decision of O.K. Bhardwaj (supra) placed reliance by learned Counsel is not applicable in the present case because here the position is otherwise since the delinquent has admitted the charge levelled against him. The explanation which he offered will not come within the purview of denial of the charges. In these state of affairs, the above said Service Regulations are not applicable to the Appellant. 8. We have also gone through the reasoning assigned by the learned Writ Court dismissing the writ petition and according to us, learned Writ Court did not commit any error in dismissing the same. 9. We do not find any substance in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.