Judgment 1. The petitioner was employed as Cashier by the Krishna District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, the 2nd respondent herein. A charge memo was issued on 03-06-2002 alleging that he misappropriated a sum of Rs.30,000/-and that he failed to maintain the accounts properly. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 12-06-2002, denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, the General Manager of the Bank, the 3rd respondent herein, appointed an Enquiry Officer. A report was submitted on 08-11-2002 by the Enquiry Officer, holding that the first charge is proved, but not the second one. 2. The 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 20-11-2002 pointing out that the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer as to charge No.1 is accepted and that he disagrees with the finding on charge No.2. Having said so, he opined that the petitioner cannot be continued in service, on account of the fact that he has misappropriated a sum of Rs.30,000/-, and lost confidence of the Bank; and punishment of dismissal was proposed. Petitioner submitted his explanation / objections on 28-12-2002. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent passed an order, dated 13-3-2003, dismissing the petitioner from service. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the appellate authority through order dated 10-06-2003. Hence, this revision. 3. Petitioner contends that though the 3rd respondent disagrees with the finding of the Enquiry Officer on charge No.2, he did not issue any show cause notice in that behalf and straightaway passed the order of dismissal. He contends that such a course is contrary to law laid down by the Supreme Court. 4. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that though the 3rd respondent made an observation to the effect that charge Nop.2 is also proved, he did not take that into account either at the time of proposing punishment or while inflicting it. 5. Sri Venkata Rangadas Kanuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though it is competent for a disciplinary authority to disagrees with the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry, he is under obligation to issue show case notice to the delinquent employee. He submits that the 3rd respondent expressed the view that the finding of the Enquiry Officer on charge No.2 is not proper and he has further taken the view that the said charge is proved. He submits that the 3rd respondent expressed the view that the finding of the Enquiry Officer on charge No.2 is not proper and he has further taken the view that the said charge is proved. Learned counsel further submits that before the 3rd respondent forms such an opinion, he was under obligation to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and such a step was not taken in the instant case. 6. Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the observation of the 3rd respondent that charge No.2 was proved, was almost in the form of passing reference and that he did not take that into account while passing the order impugned. 7. The relevant facts, in brief, have been stated already. The only question, that arises for consideration is as to whether the order impugned suffers from the vice of failure to issue show cause notice on charge No.2. Law in this regard is fairly settled. In Yoginath D. Bagde v. state of Maharashtra & another (1999 (5) SLR 248) the Supreme Court held that before a disciplinary authority disagrees with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer, he must issue a show cause notice to the delinquent employee. 8. In the instant case, the 3rd respondent framed two charges against the petitioner. Charge No.1 was that the petitioner misappropriated a sum of Rs.30,000/- and charge No.2 was that he failed to maintain the accounts of the Bank properly. In the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that charge No.1 is proved and that the charge No.2 is not proved. The 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner after the enquiry report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer. While he agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer on charge No.1, he took a different view as to the finding on charge No.2. If the matter were to have rested at that, or he proceeded on the basis that charge No.2 is also proved and imposed the punishment of dismissal, the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in Yoginath’s case (supra 1), would have certainly got attracted. 9. If the matter were to have rested at that, or he proceeded on the basis that charge No.2 is also proved and imposed the punishment of dismissal, the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in Yoginath’s case (supra 1), would have certainly got attracted. 9. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 20-11-2002 discloses that though the 3rd respondent made an observation to the effect that charge No.2 also can be taken as proved, he did not permit that to come into the decision making process. While proposing the punishment, he has undertaken extensive discussion and it was confined to charge No.1 alone. The relevant portion reads as under: “As the Domestic enquiry officer has reported that the allegation No.1 has been proved after due enquiry, it is needless to conform that the entire fraud has taken place on account of total failure of the delinquent employee in discharging his legitimate duties of cashier. Further it is affirmed that had the employee discharged his duties with malafide intentions to misappropriate the customer’s money. Thus he committed an act prejudicial to the interests of the Bank involving the Bank in a serious loss. By derelicting his duties he has misappropriated the funds of the Bank to the extent of Rs.30,000/- and thereby caused deficiency to the assets of the Bank. Further, enormous damage was caused to the image of the Bank. The loss suffered by the Bank is not measurable on account of gross dereliction of duties and dishonest intentions by the delinquent employee. The Bank cannot therefore repose the trust in such an irresponsible employee in service and put the valuable and innocent customers’ money at stake. He thereby committed gross misconduct under the provisions of the memorandum of settlement arrived on 15.6.97 between AP Coop Banks Association, Hyderabad and the AP Bank Employees Federation, Hyderabad. By indulging in such irregularities as stated above, the charged employee committed gross misconduct and acted in a way unbecoming of an employee of the bank and further proved to be an unworthy person to be continued in service warranting severe punishment of ‘DISMISSAL’. Keeping in view the severity of the fraud, it is propose to inflict a punishment of ‘DISMISSAL’ from the service of the Bank upon him.” 10. Keeping in view the severity of the fraud, it is propose to inflict a punishment of ‘DISMISSAL’ from the service of the Bank upon him.” 10. There is no basis to infer that charge No.2 was taken into account, while proposing the punishment similar observations are made in the final order. Once the record is clear that it is only charge No.1 that weighed with the 3rd respondent, either while issuing the show cause notice and constituted the basis for passing the impugned order, no illegality is said to have been crept into the proceedings. 11. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.