JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The petitioner in this writ application prays for setting aside the order dated 29.8.2003 in Annexure-9 in which the Chairman, Orissa Bridge and Construction Corporation Ltd. has terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground of misappropriation of Government fund and other charges. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant by order of the Managing Director of the Corporation on 29.8.1984. He was posted in the office of the Senior Project Manager, Bhubaneswar. In June 2003, he was intimated by the Managing Director of the Corporation that on reconciliation of Toll Account, it was noticed that an amount of Rs. 79,087.50 collected by the petitioner had not been deposited in the bank for the period from 7.3.2003 to 5.5.2003 when he was in-charge of Rampella Toll Gate, Rengali. In the said letter, he was directed to explain the unauthorised retention of Toll revenue for such a long period. It was also directed in the said letter to deposit the entire amount of toll revenue laying with him in a single installment immediately. Further he was directed to submit his explanation with sufficient reasons for unauthorised retention of toll revenue in hand and as to why it will not be treated as temporary misappropriation of Government money, failing which, it will be presumed that the petitioner has nothing to defend his case and action as deemed fit will be taken against him. After receipt of the letter, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 30,088/- in cash towards part deposit against the total amount of Rs. 79,087.50. By letter dated 25.6.2003 the Managing Director of the Corporation intimated the petitioner to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 48,999.50 and again intimated the petitioner as to why he has not submitted his explanation for unauthorised retention of Government money with him, failing which, action will be initiated against him. Thereafter, proceeding was initiated against him on the allegation of misappropriation of Government revenue, negligence in discharging the duties by non-depositing the Toll revenue collected during his incumbency as Toll in-charge and disobedience of office instructions. 2. In reply to the charge, the petitioner in Annexure-8 submitted that the memorandum of charge is vague and prayed for supplying a copy of the charge in proper form. In Annexure-9 the impugned order was passed by the Chairman terminating the services of the petitioner. 2. In reply to the charge, the petitioner in Annexure-8 submitted that the memorandum of charge is vague and prayed for supplying a copy of the charge in proper form. In Annexure-9 the impugned order was passed by the Chairman terminating the services of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted; an appeal in Annexure-10 against the order of termination before the Appellate Authority but the order of punishment having been passed by the Appellate Authority, the appeal was not disposed of. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that before the order of punishment was imposed the petitioner had not been supplied with a copy of the inquiry report and was not given an opportunity of making his submissions with regard to findings in the inquiry report as well as the proposed punishment. It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Chairman being the Appellate Authority could not have passed the order of punishment. Mr. Pattnaik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation submitted that the charge with regard to misappropriation was admitted by the petitioner and, therefore, it was not felt necessary to supply him with a copy of the inquiry report. 4. Undisputedly, in Annexure-4, the Managing Director of the Corporation by letter dated 5.6.2003 intimated the petitioner that he had not deposited a sum of Rs. 79,087.50 for the period from 7.3.2003 to 5.5.2003 when he was in-charge of Rampella Toll Gate, Rengali. In the said letter, the petitioner was also directed to submit his explanation. In reply to the said notice, in Annexure-5 the petitioner intimated the Managing Director that he had already deposited a sum of Rs. 30,088/-. In view of the above conduct on the part of the petitioner relating to misappropriation of Government revenue was practically admitted. The charge having been admitted, no fruitful purpose would have been served had the petitioner been given an opportunity to meet the findings of the Inquiry Officer. However, the requirement of law is that before the Disciplinary Authority accepts the inquiry report, a notice to show cause is required to be issued to the delinquent officer to make his submissions not only in respect of the findings of the Inquiry Officer but also in respect of the punishment proposed. Admittedly, the Disciplinary Authority has not issued any notice to show cause to the petitioner. Admittedly, the Disciplinary Authority has not issued any notice to show cause to the petitioner. After receipt of the inquiry report, he was not supplied with the inquiry report. On this ground alone, we could have remitted the matter back to that stage. However, the petitioner having been admitted the charge as stated earlier, no fruitful purpose would have been served by issuing him a copy of inquiry report. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, the petitioner having not been given an opportunity of hearing, we could have remitted the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for consideration of quantum of punishment to be imposed after hearing the petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for both parties submitted that since the entire matter is before the Court, instead of remitting the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority, the Court may decide the quantum of punishment required to be imposed. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to a decision of the of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. General Manager, SBI v. Thomas Jose and Anr., (2000) 10 SCC 280 . In the said case, an employee of the Bank was dismissed from service on account 2 of his misconduct for withdrawing money unauthorisedly from customers account. The Hon'ble Supreme Court modified the punishment and directed that the concerned officer would not be entitled to increments for a substantial period often years with all the cumulative consequences and would not also be entitled to back wages. The difference in this case is that the petitioner retained the money with him till he was found to have misappropriated the same. Therefore, we are of the view that an order for compulsory retirement will be the appropriate punishment. We accordingly convert the punishment of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement. With the above modification in the order of punishment imposed by the Chairman in Annexure-9, this writ application is disposed of. S.K. Mishra, J. I agree.