ORDER Krishn Kumar Lahoti, J. 1.This petition is directed against an order dated 27.12.1995 document no. 26 by which the petitioner was removed from services of respondent/ Corporation in term of Regulation 39(i)(f) of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 with immediate effect and the period of suspension was treated as 'dies-non'. The petitioner has also challenged the order of the appellate authority document no. 28 dated 11th August 1996 by which an appeal preferred against document no. 26 was dismissed. These orders are challenged on the grounds that the inquiry was proceeded ex parte against the petitioner and no intimation was given to the petitioner for 20th November, 1995 on which date the inquiry proceeded ex parte, That the petitioner had demanded legal assistance in the matter vide documents 17 and 18, but the prayer was declined, while the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were law knowing persons then the petitioner ought to have been extended a facility of legal assistance in the matter, That for the same charge, a criminal case was filed against the petitioner, and vide judgment dated 30th August, 1994 in Criminal Case No. 286/1992 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baraseoni, the petitioner was acquitted, but for the same charges, the petitioner has been removed from the service. It is submitted that the impugned order Document No. 26 and document no. 28 may be quashed. 2. From the perusal of the record, it appears that vide document no. 10, following charges were leveled against the petitioner. That during the period you were posted as Dev. Officer with headquarters at Katangi under Balaghat Branch Office: 1. You collected Rs. 3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand only) in cash from Shri H.L.Bavistale, Teacher, Govt. High School Mirjapur (Annexure 1) towards quarterly premium due June, 1991 and September, 1991 under his policy no. 370268571, to be deposited in Branch Office Balaghat, but you did not deposit the same even after continued follow up and complaint to Sr. Branch Manager, Balaghat, by the policy holder resulting in the said policy into a lapse condition. That you on persuasion by Shri S.S.Vatia, Sr. Branch Manager, Balaghat Branch deposited the following premiums and got the policy of Shri Bavistala revived under Special Revival Scheme. (I) SPR No. 6035 dated 26.8.92 for Rs. 1611.20 premium due only 6/ 92. (ii) SPR no. 6140 dated 10.9.92 for Rs. That you on persuasion by Shri S.S.Vatia, Sr. Branch Manager, Balaghat Branch deposited the following premiums and got the policy of Shri Bavistala revived under Special Revival Scheme. (I) SPR No. 6035 dated 26.8.92 for Rs. 1611.20 premium due only 6/ 92. (ii) SPR no. 6140 dated 10.9.92 for Rs. 1526.00 premium due only 9/92. By the above acts you have temporarily misappropriated corporation's fund for your personal gain. 2. That, you collected from your agent Shri K.L.Patle, Code No. 505.380 an amount of Rs. 5086/- (Rs. Five thousand eighty six) towards premium under following policies and new proposal (Annexure II) but did not deposit the same in the Branch Office which resulted in these policies going into lapse condition. These premiums were however, deposited by you as detailed in B.O.Balaghat on 5.9.92. Sl.No Name Policy No. Amount Deposited vide MR No. and date 1. ShriNeelamTurkar 370265682 1243/- 002170 5.9.92 2. ShriMeeraBamota 370265796 645/- 002171 5.9.92 3. Shri Mohan Bhalavi 370265802 344/- 002177 5.9.92 4. ShriDecendra Singh S/o ShriLochanLalThakur New Prop. 2854/- 020065 5.9.92 By above act, you have thus temporarily misappropriated Corporation's fund for your personal gain. 3. That, you collected from Shri Govind Ram Sharnagat, R/o Gram Kohke, Dist. Balaghat an amount of Rs. 507/- (Rs. Five hundred seven) towards yearly premium under his policy number 370121895 (Annexure 111) but not deposited the same in Branch Office, with the result the policy lapsed. This amount was however paid by you in B.O., Balaghat vide BOC No. 002169 dated 5.9.92. Thus by the above act you have temporarily misappropriated Corporation's funds for your personal gain. By your aforesaid acts, you failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, failed to serve the Corporation honestly and faithfully, acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the Corporation and prejudicial to good conduct and thereby committed branch of regulations 21 and 24 read with Regulation 39(1) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960 for which any one or more of the penalties specified under Regulation 39(1) (a) to (g) of the aforesaid (Staff) Regulations, 1960 can be imposted on you. HOWEVER, before, I proceed further in the matter, you are hereby directed to state in writing, within a period of fifteen days from the date hereof, as to whether or not you plead guilty to the charges mentioned above. HOWEVER, before, I proceed further in the matter, you are hereby directed to state in writing, within a period of fifteen days from the date hereof, as to whether or not you plead guilty to the charges mentioned above. If you admit the charges, a statement of admission and, if not, a statement of denial should be submitted to the undersigned within fifteen days from the date of this charge sheet together with a list of witnesses through whom as also a list of documents by which you would like to defend yourself. Please note that if your written statement along with a list of witnesses and documents as mentioned above is not received by the undersigned, within the period stipulated or if your statement of denial is not found to be satisfactory, further proceedings in the matter shall ensue according to the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960 and other standing instructions. A provisional list of documents/witnesses relied upon to prove the aforesaid charges is attached herewith. 3. A Departmental Inquiry was directed against the petitioner in which the petitioner initially participated but subsequently remained absent. The Inquiry officer after holding an inquiry found all the charges proved.Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority vide document 26 passed the aforesaid order. Though an appeal was preferred but vide the order document 28, it was dismissed. 4. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that documents 26 and 28 are non- speaking order. But from the perusal of document 28, it is apparent that the Disciplinary Authority after considering the findings recorded by the Inquiry officer and the inquiry report, passed the order of punishment. This order has to be read along with the inquiry report document no. 23 in which specific findings were recorded by the Inquiry Officer against the petitioner. 5. In so far as document 28, the appellate order is concerned, from the perusal of the order, it is apparent that the appellate authority had gone through the record and the facts of the case in its entirety and considering the contentions made by the petitioner passed the appellate order. All the contentions raised in the memo of appeal were referred in the impugned order and thereafter the appeal was dismissed. All the contentions raised in the memo of appeal were referred in the impugned order and thereafter the appeal was dismissed. The appellate authority considered all the facts and contentions of the petitioner and thereafter passed the impugned order which order cannot be said to be a non-speaking order. 6. So far as prayer of the petitioner vide document 17 for providing legal assistance is concerned, no rule is referred by the petitioner to show a fact that the petitioner was entitled for a legal assistance. In absence of any. Rules, if legal assistance was not provided, then an interference can be made only when the petitioner is able to show any prejudice was caused to the petitioner. In absence of legal assistance, there was no prejudice then no interference is needed in the departmental proceedings. Facts of the case are glaring. The petitioner collected premiums from the policy holders, but failed to deposit it within the time resulting lapse of the insurance policy. Thereafter on persuasion of the Department, the petitioner had deposited the premiums collected by him from the policy holders. This by itself shows that the petitioner had committed a gross misconduct. 7. So far as intimation about date of hearing i.e. 20th November, 1995, is concerned, no material is produced by the petitioner to show why the petitioner remained absent on 20.11.1995 or there was any necessity to the petitioner for any intimation for the date. In absence of which merely raising the ground that no intimation was sent for 20.11.1995, when no document is filed, no interference is required. This petition is without merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.