Judgment :- The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the second respondent Co-operative Society dated 13.10.2004 as well as the order passed by the first respondent dated 29.09.2007 and for a consequential order directing the respondents to give posting to the petitioner as Cashier in the second respondent Bank with continuity of service. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 01.04.2008. Pending the writ petition, this Court did not grant any interim order and dismissed the said application on 21.11.2008. Subsequently, the petitioner filed M.P.No.1 of 2009 seeking permission to raise additional grounds which was also ordered by this Court. 3. In the additional grounds, the petitioner had stated that before coming to the provisional conclusion to award punishment, the Disciplinary Authority should have furnished the enquiry report and after getting his explanation alone, he should have passed appropriate orders. It was also stated that the charges 1 to 3 were not proved. It is only the fourth charge which was held to be proved. But whereas in the provisional conclusion, the Disciplinary Authority has held that all the charges have been proved. By this conduct, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the view of the Enquiry Officer and therefore, he should have given appropriate reasons for disagreeing with the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer. On this ground, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. 4. The petitioner was directed to produce the revision application filed by him before the first respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed an additional typed set enclosing a copy of the revision application. In that revision application, the petitioner had not raised any such ground which has been set out in the additional grounds raised in the writ petition. Since before the statutory authority, the petitioner has not raised any such ground and also in the original affidavit filed in support of the writ petition such grounds were not raised, it has to be deemed that the petitioner was not either aggrieved nor prejudiced by the non-furnishing of the report and also the grant of separate reasons for disagreeing with the enquiry officer. As against the dismissal dated 13.10.2004, the petitioner preferred a revision only on 13.12.2006. The authority condoned the delay of two years and took up the revision. As against the dismissal dated 13.10.2004, the petitioner preferred a revision only on 13.12.2006. The authority condoned the delay of two years and took up the revision. The authority found that the enquiry against the petitioner was properly conducted and the Enquiry Officer had found one of the charges proved and for the proved charge, it held that the dismissal order dated 13.10.2004 is proper. 5. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India, (2006) 8 SCC 776 . Paragraphs 17, 29 and 30 may be usefully extracted below: "17. The validity of the disciplinary proceeding and/or justifiability thereof on the ground of delay or otherwise had never been raised by the appellant before any forum. It was not his case either before the Appellate Authority or before the High Court that by reason of any delay in initiating the disciplinary proceeding he had been prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. It may be true that delay itself may be a ground for arriving at a finding that enquiry proceeding was vitiated in the event it is shown that by reason thereof the delinquent officer has been prejudiced, but no such case was made out. 29. In this case, as noticed hereinbefore, the appellant did not raise the question of delay before any forum whatsoever. He did not raise such a question even before the disciplinary authority. He not only took part therein without any demur whatsoever, but, as noticed hereinbefore, cross-examined the witnesses and entered into the defence. 30. The principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It must be seen in circumstantial flexibility. It has separate facets. It has in recent time also undergone a sea change." Therefore, the attempt by the petitioner to raise the ground which was never before the revisional authority cannot be countenanced by this Court. 6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore District Central cooperative Bank Employees Assn. 6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore District Central cooperative Bank Employees Assn. And another reported in (2007) 4 SCC 669 , even that judgment cannot help the case of the petitioner since in paragraph 30 of the said judgment,the Supreme Court cautioned the High Court that while exercising power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot substitute its own judgment. 7. In the light of the above, the grounds raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. Hence, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.