ORDER 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition against order of dismissal from service. 2. The appellant was employed with the respondent Bank and was posted as Head Cashier at Banker Branch. Chargesheet dated 18.10.2004 was served on the appellant with reference to earlier Show Cause Notice dated 13.2.2004, alleging various acts of omission and commission including misappropriation of loan instalments received from the borrowers, claiming reimbursement of conveyance allowance falsely, mis-utilising the housing loan and other irregularities in various bank accounts. The appellant contested the charges and an Inquiry Officer was appointed who gave his report dated 2.4.2005, Annexure P-3/3, holding the charges to have been proved. The Inquiry Report, inter-alia, refers to record of accounts in which irregularities attributable to the appellant existed. After giving a copy of the Inquiry Report to the appellant and considering the submissions made in the reply and also giving personal hearing to the appellant, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal, against which departmental appeal of the appellant was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed writ petition in this Court, which has been dismissed by learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge held that there was no violation of principles of natural justice nor the penalty was disproportionate to the charges. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though copy of Inquiry Report was furnished to the appellant and he gave his response thereto which was considered while passing the impugned order, no Show Cause Notice was given before passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that though the charges were mentioned in the Show Cause Notice but the formal chargesheet merely referred to the same without incorporating the same in the chargesheet and that having regard to 22 years of service rendered by the appellant, the order of penalty was disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. It is also submitted that since the complainants were not examined by the department, finding of the Inquiry Officer were vitiated for want of direct evidence. 5. We do not find any substance in the submissions made. It is also submitted that since the complainants were not examined by the department, finding of the Inquiry Officer were vitiated for want of direct evidence. 5. We do not find any substance in the submissions made. A copy of Inquiry Report having been duly given to the appellant, his response thereto having been considered and personal hearing also having been afforded, it cannot be held that there was violation of principles of natural justice. As regards the charges not being incorporated in the chargesheet, reference having been made therein to the Show Cause Notice which contained the charges, it cannot be held that the same caused any prejudice to the appellant. Mere fact that complainants were not examined and there was no direct evidence in that regard before the Inquiry Officer, is of no consequence so long as there was other sufficient evidence before the Inquiry Officer in the form of records showing irregularities having been committed by the appellant. Having regard to seriousness of the charges, mere fact that the appellant served for 22 years, is no ground to hold the penalty to be disproportionate to the charges. 6. No interference is, thus, called for with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is dismissed. ------------