JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, Judge. The present letters patent appeal arises out of judgment dated 22.08.2007, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this court in CWP No. 517 of 1999, allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 against the appellants and proforma respondent No.2 for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned orders Annexures PB, PO, PQ, PS & PT may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties at the same place and at the same post on which he was performing his duties prior to the issue of impugned order Annexure PQ. (ii) In the alternative, respondents may be directed to hold denovo enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law.” 2. The operative part of the impugned judgment dated 22.08.2007, is as follows:- “Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The annexures P-Q, dated 17.3.1999 and P-T, dated 3.6.1999 are quashed and set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with liberty to the bank to proceed against the petitioner by placing him under suspension and continue with the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the copy of inquiry report.” 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are as follows. At the relevant time respondent No.1 was working as Cashier/Clerk in the appellant No.1-bank and was posted in its branch at Jabli, when vide letter dated 25.04.1997, Annexure PA, he was placed under suspension with immediate effect on the allegation that he had “defrauded depositors of the Branch for your personal benefit which constitutes a gross misconduct”. Thereafter charge-sheet dated 07.03.1998, Annexure PB, text whereof is as under, was served upon him:- “CHARGE SHEET While working as Cashier/Clerk at Jabli Branch, you are alleged to have committed the following acts of gross misconduct for which you are hereby served with charge sheet as under: 1. You indulged in various acts of omission and commission in the course of your duties in as much as you received diverse amounts from various account holders on different dates for crediting to their respective accounts but, you did not account for these sums in Bank’s books and accounts and did not deposit these monies into the respective accounts. You indulged in various acts of omission and commission in the course of your duties in as much as you received diverse amounts from various account holders on different dates for crediting to their respective accounts but, you did not account for these sums in Bank’s books and accounts and did not deposit these monies into the respective accounts. In violation of the Bank’s rules and procedures, you un-authorisedly, most irregularly and fraudulently pocketed the monies with yourself with an intent to cause wrongful gain to yourself and wrongful loss to the Bank and the customers. 2. The following details of the accounts wherein you received diverse amounts from the account holders but had not accounted for the same in bank’s books and accounts and had fraudulently pocketed the same with yourself, while corresponding credit entries were made by you in the relative pass books to deceive the bank’s valuable customers in token of receipt of the same amount by the bank:- S.No. A.C No. Name of the Amount Date on which Amt. Date A/C holder Amt.deposited of of by the customer reco-deposit As per pass book very As per list Annexure “A” FIVE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PAGES FRAUD Rs. 155700/- Plus more Amounts detected in future. 3. In this manner, you displayed your fraudulent intention to cheat and defraud Bank’s customers and tarnished Bank’s image. Your above acts have caused resentment in the minds of the local public. Subsequently, during the interrogations by B.M. Jabli Mr. A.K. Mehta AO Regional Office Mr. H.C. Sharma D.M. you vide your letter dated 17.4.97, admitted in writing of your having received the money for deposit in various accounts of the customers and misappropriating the same for personal use. Lateron on various dates, you have deposited the amounts in various accounts on dates as indicated in the Annexure “A”, with your own signatures. You have further caused loss of interest to customers from the date of fraud to the date of deposit of amount by you. 4. The aforesaid acts on your part for having derived pecuniary benefits for yourself through suppression of material facts and breach of faith in the performance of duties amounts to gross misconduct in terms of clause 19.5.(J) of Bipartite settlement, 1966 read with the provisions of Sastry/ Desai awards and subsequent bipartite settlements rendering you liable for disciplinary action. 5. 4. The aforesaid acts on your part for having derived pecuniary benefits for yourself through suppression of material facts and breach of faith in the performance of duties amounts to gross misconduct in terms of clause 19.5.(J) of Bipartite settlement, 1966 read with the provisions of Sastry/ Desai awards and subsequent bipartite settlements rendering you liable for disciplinary action. 5. Please submit your reply to the aforesaid charge sheet within ten days from the receipt thereof, failing which it will be presumed that you have no defence to offer and the matter shall be proceeded with further. Please acknowledge receipt.” 4. Respondent No.1 filed reply dated 16.04.1998, Annexure PG, to the charge-sheet, which is as under:- “CHARGE SHEET DATED 07.03.1998. With reference to the above I beg to submit that the mistakes, errors of omission and/commission occurred due to the lapse of Bank Authorities who did not provide sufficient staff for running the business of the Branch smoothly & properly. The Head Cashier Shri Rajesh Kumar was transferred to Dadu Majra in Nov., 1994 from Jabli and thereafter I was the lone person left to run the branch (both in clerical and cash department) and had to rely on the versions of other staff members who used to look after the work of the Branch in my absence caused due to my visiting Dharampur Branch in connection with the replenishment of the cash. Even the Branch Manager made numerous entries in the accounts mentioned by you in the Charge-sheet during my absence, but he never pointed out any error or lapse on my part. Had there been any intentional lapse the Branch Manager while dealing such accounts was bound to point the same out so that the position could be rectified there and then, but that was not to be. It is a matter of record that the branch manager deposited the amounts of the customers, in numerous cases, in the similar manner for which I was placed under suspension and have been charge-sheeted, but no action has been initiated against him. For the sake of equal justice take the similar action against the Branch Manager as has been taken against me. As regards my admission the same was under threat and coercion and was got manipulated by Shri A.K. Mehta, Admn. For the sake of equal justice take the similar action against the Branch Manager as has been taken against me. As regards my admission the same was under threat and coercion and was got manipulated by Shri A.K. Mehta, Admn. Officer who came for investigation and made the presence of police constables to pressurize me to make apology which I had to.” 5. Against the above backdrop, appellant No.1-bank appointed an Inquiry Officer to go into the charges levelled against respondent No.1, who submitted report dated 17.12.1998, copy of which along with show cause notice dated 06.01.1999, Annexure PO, text whereof is as under, was served upon respondent No.1:- “SHOW CAUSE NOTICE This is with reference to the Charge Sheet dated 07.03.1998 served on you and the Departmental Enquiry, based on the said Charge Sheet, conducted by the Bank. 1) Sh. K.J. Verma, Enquiry Officer, submitted his findings vide his Enquiry Report dated 17.12.98 wherein he has held the charges against you as contained in the aforesaid Charge Sheet, as proved. A photocopy of Enquiry Report is enclosed. 2) After considering all the charges contained in the Charge Sheet and the findings of the Enquiry Report, holding all the charges as proved, I have come to conclusion that the acts on your part amount to “Gross misconduct” and warrant exemplary action against you. Accordingly, I have tentatively decided to impose a punishment of “Dismissal” without notice as per clause 19.6 (A) of the first Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.66. 3) However, before I take a final decision in the case, you are advised to show cause, within a period of fifteen days from the receipt of this communication, as to why the proposed punishment may not be imposed upon you. You may also state your defence in person alongwith your workman representative, if any, before me with prior appointment, within aforesaid period of fifteen days, if you so desire. In case, you fail to avail the opportunity of: (i) Submitting your reply or (ii) personal hearing, within the stipulated period, it will be presumed that you have no defence to offer; and the matter will be proceeded with further. 4) Meanwhile, please acknowledge receipt of this notice.” 6. Respondent No.1 submitted reply dated 18.01.1999, Annexure PP to the show cause notice. It reads as under:- “SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 06.01.1999 ON PRELIMIANRY GROUNDS The Enquiry was held by Sh. 4) Meanwhile, please acknowledge receipt of this notice.” 6. Respondent No.1 submitted reply dated 18.01.1999, Annexure PP to the show cause notice. It reads as under:- “SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 06.01.1999 ON PRELIMIANRY GROUNDS The Enquiry was held by Sh. K.J. Verma in sheer violation of the norms and procedures and in undue haste. I was not permitted to be defended by a lawyer as I was not being defended by my union at the time of the incident, whereas there is a provision in the Bipartite Settlement that the delinquent employee can be permitted to be defended through a lawyer. 2. The Enquiry conducted by Sh. K.J. Verma was a one sided show as I could not defend myself, could not cross examine the Prosecution witnesses as I was not permitted to be defended through lawyer in violation of the provision of the Bipartite Settlement. During the enquiry I was harassed and humiliated and on each date of the Enquiry I was pressurized to admit the Charges. 3. Sheer violation of the norms has been committed intentionally because I was not allowed to remain at the Head Quarter of my choice during the period of Suspension because of which my finances were squeezed so that I could not prepare my defence. I have already requested for Change of Enquiry Officer and Denovo proceedings which may kindly be permitted for the sake of Natural Justice.” 7.Ultimately penalty of “DISSMISSAL WITHOUT NOTICE” as per clause 19.6(a) of the first Bipartite settlement dated 19.10.1966, was imposed upon respondent No.1 vide orders dated 17.03.1999, Annexure PQ, against which, he filed an appeal dated 31.03.1999, Annexure PR, to the Deputy General Manager (appellant No.2) being the Appellate Authority, who after hearing him in person vide proceedings dated 13.05.1999,Annexure PS, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 03.06.1999, Annexure PT and upheld the penalty of dismissal without notice imposed upon him. Being aggrieved, he challenged the dismissal by filing the aforesaid writ petition, which was allowed, giving rise to filing of the present appeal, as already noticed. 8.We have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants and for respondent No.1 and have gone through the records. 9. Being aggrieved, he challenged the dismissal by filing the aforesaid writ petition, which was allowed, giving rise to filing of the present appeal, as already noticed. 8.We have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellants and for respondent No.1 and have gone through the records. 9. The contentious issue between the parties is that whereas according to the appellants a copy of the enquiry report dated 17.12.1998, was duly sent to respondent No.1 along with show cause notice dated 06.01.1999, Annexure PO, which contains a specific recital to this effect in para 1 and it was neither pleaded nor proved at any stage of the proceedings including the writ petition that any prejudice has been caused to respondent No.1 as a result of the tentative proposal in the show cause notice to impose punishment of dismissal without notice, according to respondent No.1 grave prejudice has been caused to him as the disciplinary authority had already made up its mind and enclosing a copy of enquiry report with the show cause notice was a mere formality. In support of their contention the appellants have placed reliance upon Haryana Financial Corporation and another vs. Kailash Chandra Ahuja, (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 31. Per contra reliance has been placed on behalf of respondent No.1 on Punjab National Bank and others vs. K.K. Verma, (2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 494. 10. The record reveals that along with the show cause notice, dated 06.01.1999, Annexure PO, whereby imposition of tentative punishment of dismissal without notice was proposed against respondent No.1, a photocopy of the enquiry report dated 17.12.1998, was also forwarded to him. This fact was not disputed by respondent No.1 in reply dated 18.01.1999, Annexure PP, to the show cause notice. Thus, it cannot be said that copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to respondent No.1 and instead it can be safely concluded to have been impliedly admitted. 11.Now arises the question of any prejudice having been caused to respondent No.1 on account of the proposed tentative imposition of penalty of dismissal without notice vide show cause notice dated 06.01.1999, Annexure PO. In this regard, it would be seen that neither any such prejudice was pleaded or proved at any stage of the proceedings, viz. reply dated 18.01.1999, Annexure PP to the show cause notice, appeal dated 31.03.1999, Annexure PR or in the writ petition. In this regard, it would be seen that neither any such prejudice was pleaded or proved at any stage of the proceedings, viz. reply dated 18.01.1999, Annexure PP to the show cause notice, appeal dated 31.03.1999, Annexure PR or in the writ petition. Even otherwise, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Mohd. Ramajan Khan, (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 588 that after the constitution (Forty second Amendment) Act, 1976, second opportunity granted by article 311(2) of the constitution has been abolished. It has further been held in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others vs. B. Karunakar and others, (1993) 4 Supreme Court cases 727 that even non- supply of the enquiry report shall not ipso facto vitiate the order of punishment in the absence of prejudice to the delinquent. However, as already observed, no such prejudice has either been pleaded or proved on behalf of respondent No.1 at any stage of the proceedings. 12.Even otherwise, as per the Bipartite Settlement, copy of which is Annexure R-10, an employee found guilty of gross misconduct, as in the present case, could very well be dismissed without notice. 13. Above all, respondent No.1 had been admitting his guilt in writing and had also deposited a part of the amount embezzled by him, vide letters dated 17.04.1997, Annexures R-6 and R-7, 19.04.1997, Annexure R-8 and 17.02.1998, Annexure R-9, English translation/typed copies whereof are Annexures R-6/1, R-7/1, R-8/1 and R-9/1, respectively, proved during the enquiry by PW-6 Shri S.C. Dhamija, Branch Manager. In this respect, it would be seen that these letters pertain to the period 17.04.1997 to 17.02.1998, that is, even prior to issuance of charge- sheet dated 07.03.1998, Annexure PB. However, at no point of time he had raised any objection that he had not written these letters out of his free and independent volition and instead he was coerced to do so, much less under police pressure, as stated by him in reply dated 18.01.1999, Annexure PP to the show cause notice, which on the face of it appears to be an afterthought and that too without any supporting material to substantiate the same. 14.The case of respondent No.1 can also not be said to have been prejudiced due to non supply of copies of the record asked by him, as his request to inspect such record was granted and he had in fact inspected the same. Similarly, he can also not be said to have been prejudiced due to denial of permission to engage a lawyer to defend him in the enquiry, as though it was within the discretion of appellant No.1-bank, yet other options to avail the services of a representative of registered trade union(s), were available to him in terms of clause 19.12 of 1st Bipartite Settlement, Annexure R-4. The Enquiry Officer could not have been changed at the whims and fancies of respondent No. 1, as asked by him. This has also not resulted in any prejudice to him in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 15.True it is that respondent No.1 had filed reply dated 18.01.1999, Annexure-PP to the show cause notice. However, in the impugned order dated 17.3.1999, Annexure-PQ, whereby punishment of dismissal from service without notice has been imposed upon respondent No. 1, it is recited that he had neither submitted reply nor requested for personal hearing. Though, this recital is contrary to the records, yet a bare perusal of reply dated 18.01.1999, Annexure-PP, would go to show that the grounds raised therein regarding permission to avail the services of a lawyer and the request for change of the Enquiry Officer and holding de novo proceedings have already been held not to have caused any prejudice to him. 16. By placing reliance upon Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 713, (head note B, paras 31 to 33), it was next contended on behalf of respondent No.1 that the appellate order dated 03.06.1999, Annexure-PT, besides being a non speaking order lacks due application of mind. 16. By placing reliance upon Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 713, (head note B, paras 31 to 33), it was next contended on behalf of respondent No.1 that the appellate order dated 03.06.1999, Annexure-PT, besides being a non speaking order lacks due application of mind. However, when this order is viewed in the light of the contentions raised by respondent No.1 in his appeal dated 31.03.1999, Annexure-PR and the proceedings dated 13.05.1999, Annexure-PS of personal hearing granted to him before decision of the appeal, it would be seen that apart from reiterating the aforesaid contentions regarding non supply of copies of record, availing of services of defence lawyer during enquiry and change of the Enquiry Officer and further that respondent No.1 15 prayed for remission of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on personal grounds that he was having school going children, wife and aged parents and there is no other bread earning member in the family, no new ground was raised and the appellate authority while passing orders on the appeal dated 03.06.1999, Annexure­PT, has taken all the relevant factors into consideration and then come to the conclusion that the penalty of dismissal without notice imposed upon respondent No.1 was liable to be upheld. As such, it cannot be said that the appellate order suffers from any infirmity. 17.In the result, the appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 22.08.2007, shall stand reversed and the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs throughout.