Judgment This writ petition has been filed challenging the penalty order dated 14.06.2004 passed by the disciplinary authority and order dated 23.08.2004 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was initially appointed on 11.06.1978 in the respondent-bank on the post of Cashier and subsequently, he was promoted in the rank of officer on 01.06.1998. A charge - memo was served upon the petitioner and thereafter, a corrigenda was also given to him on 11.02.2004. By order dated 11.08.2003, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the enquiry report was submitted on 16.04.2004. The disciplinary authority passed the order of penalty of dismissal from service on 14.06.2004. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by order dated 23.08.2004. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that the charges against the petitioner were very serious and though the petitioner was given an opportunity to defend himself he subsequently, did not appear in the departmental proceeding and therefore, the departmental proceeding continued ex-parte. It is also stated that on a consideration of the materials on record, the authority has passed an order of penalty dated 14.06.2004 and the appellate authority has also rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that during the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was not permitted to withdraw the subsistence allowance which was credited in his salary account maintained in the respondent-bank. He has further submitted that this issue was specifically raised by the petitioner before the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority however, both the authorities have erroneously rejected the plea taken by the petitioner and passed the order of penalty of dismissal from service. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the act of the respondent-bank in denying the petitioner to withdraw the subsistence allowance which in turn incapacitated the petitioner from effectively defending himself during the departmental enquiry would vitiate, the entire departmental proceeding. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the act of the respondent-bank in denying the petitioner to withdraw the subsistence allowance which in turn incapacitated the petitioner from effectively defending himself during the departmental enquiry would vitiate, the entire departmental proceeding. The learned counsel has relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : (i) (1999) 3 SCC 679 (ii) (2000) 7 SCC 90 and (iii) (2003) LLJ 495 6. Relying on Rule 14 of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees Discipline and Revision, 1976, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that it is an admitted fact that the respondent-bank has violated its own Rule and therefore, the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Rule 14 of Allahabad Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 is extracted below: Rule14: “SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE DURING SUSPENSION (1) An officer employee who is place under suspension shall, during the period of such suspension and subject to sub-regulations (2) to (4) be entitled to receive payment from the Bank by way of subsistence allowance on the following scale, namely:- (a) Basic Pay : (i) For the first three months of suspension 1/3 of basic pay which the officer employee was receiving on the date prior to the date of suspension irrespective of the nature of enquiry. (ii) For the subsequent period after 3 months from the date of suspension (1) Where the enquiry is held departmentally by the Bank, ½ of the basic pay, the officer employee was drawing on the date prior to the date of suspension, and (2) Where the enquiry is held by an outside agency, 1/3 of the basic pay which the officer employee was drawing on the date prior to the date of suspension for the next three months and ½ of the basic pay which the officer employee was drawing on the date prior to the date of suspension for the remaining period of suspension. (b)Allowances: (1) For the entire period of suspension, dearness allowance and other allowances excepting conveyance allowance, entertainment allowance and special allowance will be calculated on the reduced pay as specified in terms (I) and (ii) of Clause (a) above and at the prevailing rates or at rates applicable to similar category of officers. (b)Allowances: (1) For the entire period of suspension, dearness allowance and other allowances excepting conveyance allowance, entertainment allowance and special allowance will be calculated on the reduced pay as specified in terms (I) and (ii) of Clause (a) above and at the prevailing rates or at rates applicable to similar category of officers. (2) During the period of suspension an officer employee shall not be entitled to occupation of a rent-free house or free use of the bank's car or receipt of conveyance or entertainment allowance or special allowance. (3) No officer employee of the bank shall be entitled to receive payment of subsistence allowance unless he furnishes a certificate that he is not engaged in any other employment, business, profession or vocation. (4) If, during the period of suspension officer employee retires by reason of his attaining he age of superannuation, no subsistence allowance shall be paid to him from the date of his retirement.” 7. Per contra, vehemently opposing the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner, Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent-bank has contended that during the enquiry the petitioner never raised the plea of non-payment of subsistence allowance due to which he could not defend himself effectively and in fact, such a plea is required to be raised at the initial stage itself. No-where in the writ petition it has been averred that such a plea was raised by the petitioner during the departmental proceeding. The petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer on 24.03.2004 and sought one day's adjournment for arranging defence assistance. However, on 25.03.2004, he attended the enquiry proceeding for a short while and thereafter, he left the proceeding and did not attend the departmental proceeding. The charges levelled against the petitioner are forging signature of the customers of the respondent-bank, misappropriation of account, siphoning the bank's money etc. and the charges have been found proved in the departmental enquiry. The charges against the petitioner have been substantiated by the respondent-bank on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence. The plea of the petitioner that due to non-payment of subsistence allowance he could not attend the departmental proceeding, is definitely a false plea taken by the petitioner before this Court. The charges against the petitioner have been substantiated by the respondent-bank on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence. The plea of the petitioner that due to non-payment of subsistence allowance he could not attend the departmental proceeding, is definitely a false plea taken by the petitioner before this Court. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority both have recorded specific finding that the petitioner never raised such grievance during the enquiry that due to non-payment of subsistence allowance, he was not able to defend himself effectively. Relying on the enquiry report, the findings recorded in the enquiry report as well as the documents filed by the respondents-bank to indicate the deposit of subsistence allowance in the salary account of the petitioner and few withdrawals by the petitioner, Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank has contended that the petitioner was not prevented from operating his bank account and in fact, it is a matter of record that the respondent-bank credited the amount of subsistence allowance in the salary account of the petitioner maintained in the respondent-bank itself. On these grounds, the claim of the petitioner has been resisted by the respondents. Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : (i) (1973) 1SCC 656, (ii) (2005) 8 SCC 211 , (iii) (2008) 2 SCC 55 , and (iv) (2003) LIC 3844. 8. After having appreciated the rival contentions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it would be useful to notice the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In “Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr.” reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if an employee could not attend the departmental proceeding on account of financial stringency caused by non-payment of subsistence allowance, and thereby could not undertake a journey away from his home to attend the departmental proceeding, the order of punishment, including the whole proceeding would stand vitiated. 9. In “Jagdamba Prasad Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.” reported in (2000) 7 SCC 90 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, 8. The payment of subsistence allowance, in accordance with the Rules, to an employee under suspension is not a bounty. 9. In “Jagdamba Prasad Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.” reported in (2000) 7 SCC 90 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, 8. The payment of subsistence allowance, in accordance with the Rules, to an employee under suspension is not a bounty. It is a right. An employee is entitled to be paid the subsistence allowance. No justifiable ground has been made out for non-payment of the subsistence allowance all through the period of suspension i.e. from suspension till removal. One of the reasons for not appearing in inquiry as intimated to the authorities was the financial crunch on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance and the other was the illness of the appellant. The appellant in reply to the show-cause notice stated that even if he was to appear in inquiry against medical advice, he was unable to appear for want of funds on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance. It is a clear case of breach of principles of natural justice on account of the denial of reasonable opportunity to the appellant to defend himself in the departmental enquiry. Thus, the departmental enquiry and the consequent order of removal from service are quashed.” 10. In “State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. K. K. Sharma”, reported in (2003) 1 LLJ 495 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the order passed by the High Court holding that non-payment of subsistence allowance would amount to denial of a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent employee. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in “Ghanshyam Das Shrivastava Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh”, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 656 , in which the appellant had written a letter to the enquiry officer informing that unless he was paid subsistence allowance, he would not be able to face the enquiry proceeding. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed and held as under, “5...........Para 5 of the writ petition expressly alleges that on December 5, 1964, the appellant sent a letter to the Enquiry Officer informing him that unless he was paid subsistence allowance he would not be able to face the enquiry proceedings. The letter was filed along with the petition. It is Annexure H. The letter stated that “Until and unless I am paid subsistence allowance... I categorically refuse to face any proceeding ... The letter was filed along with the petition. It is Annexure H. The letter stated that “Until and unless I am paid subsistence allowance... I categorically refuse to face any proceeding ... as I have no capacity to do so because of acute shortage of funds.” (emphasis added). This is obviously specific pleading on the point that for non-payment of subsistence allowance he was short of funds and could not attend the enquiry. It is true that his affidavit does not give any particulars about his sources of income and the estimate of expenses to be incurred in the enquiry. But it would prima facie suggest that he had no other sources of income except his pay. If he had no other sources of income, he could not invent them for the purpose of mentioning them in the affidavit. More significantly, the government affidavit does not allege that he had any other source of income except pay. The fact that he had been drawing a monthly pay of Rs 300 till October, 1964, would not necessarily show that he had sufficient money to enable him to go to Jagdalpur to attend the enquiry in February 1965. He was suspended on October 30, 1964 and thereafter he did not get subsistence allowance until March 20, 1965. Having regard to the prevailing high price, it is not possible to draw any adverse inference against him from the mere circumstance that he had been receiving a monthly pay of Rs.300 till October 1964. The fact that he filed a writ petition immediately on the passing of the order of dismissal and thereafter came in appeal to this Court, would not establish that he had enough resources to enable him to attend the enquiry. It seems to us that on the whole the High Court has gone by conjectures and surmises. There is nothing on the record to show that he has any other source of income except pay. As he did not receive subsistence allowance till March 20, 1965, he could not, in our opinion, attend the enquiry. The first payment of subsistence allowance was made to him on March 20, 1965, after a part of the evidence had already been recorded on February 9, 10 and 11, 1965. The enquiry proceedings during those days are vitiated accordingly. As he did not receive subsistence allowance till March 20, 1965, he could not, in our opinion, attend the enquiry. The first payment of subsistence allowance was made to him on March 20, 1965, after a part of the evidence had already been recorded on February 9, 10 and 11, 1965. The enquiry proceedings during those days are vitiated accordingly. The report of the Enquiry Officer based on that evidence is infected with the same defect. Accordingly, the order of the Government dismissing him from service cannot stand. It was passed in violation of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution for the appellant did not receive a reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the enquiry proceedings.” 12. In “U.P. State Textile Corpn. Ltd. v. P.C. Chaturvedi”, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 211 , the employee did not take a stand that due to non-payment of subsistence allowance, he was not in a position to participate in the enquiry proceeding. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under; 12. “So far as the effect of not paying the subsistence allowance is concerned, before the authorities no stand was taken by Respondent 1 employee that because of non-payment of subsistence allowance, he was not in a position to participate in the proceedings, or that any other prejudice in effectively defending the proceedings was caused to him. He did not plead or substantiate also that the non-payment was either deliberate or to spite him. It is ultimately a question of prejudice. Unless prejudice is shown and established, mere non-payment of subsistence allowance cannot ipso facto be a ground to vitiate the proceedings in every case. It has to be specifically pleaded and established as to in what way the affected employee is handicapped because of non-receipt of subsistence allowance. Unless that is done, it cannot be held as an absolute position in law that non-payment of subsistence allowance amounts to denial of opportunity and vitiates departmental proceedings. 13. The above position was highlighted in Indra Bhanu Gaur v. Committee, M.M. Degree College. 14. It is to be noted that no grievance was made at any time during the pendency of the proceedings that Respondent 1 employee was being prejudiced on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance. In fact, for the first time the request was made for payment of subsistence allowance on 5-1-1993 i.e. after completion of the enquiry. 14. It is to be noted that no grievance was made at any time during the pendency of the proceedings that Respondent 1 employee was being prejudiced on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance. In fact, for the first time the request was made for payment of subsistence allowance on 5-1-1993 i.e. after completion of the enquiry. The ratio in Indra Bhanu case is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case.” 13. In “State Government of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Shankarlal”, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 55 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it must be shown that because of non-payment, he was not in a position to participate in the proceeding or that any other prejudice ineffectively defending the proceeding was caused to him. 14. In “Indra Bhanu Gaur Vs. Committee, Management of M.M. Degree College & Ors.” reported in (2003) 4 Lab. I.C 3844, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that non-payment of subsistence allowance would ipso-facto, cannot be a ground to challenge the departmental proceedings and the affected employee must show and establish the prejudice caused to him in effectively defending the proceedings. In paragraph no.8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, “8. From the judgment of the High Court, in the writ petition it appears that there is no reference to the alleged infirmity on account of subsistence allowance having not been paid. There was also no specific finding recorded for the question of bias as alleged presently. We find that there was total lack of cooperation from the appellant as the factual background highlighted above would go to show. Ample opportunity was granted to the appellant to place his case. He did not choose to do so. It is only a person who was ready and willing to avail of opportunity given can make a grievance about denial of any opportunity and not a person like the appellant who despite repeated opportunities given and indulgence shown exhibited defiance and total indifference in extending cooperation. Therefore, on that score the appellant cannot have any grievance. So far as the effect of not paying the subsistence allowance is concerned, before the authorities no stand was taken that because of non-payment of subsistence allowance, he was not in a position to participate in the proceedings, or that any other prejudice in effectively defending the proceedings was caused to him. So far as the effect of not paying the subsistence allowance is concerned, before the authorities no stand was taken that because of non-payment of subsistence allowance, he was not in a position to participate in the proceedings, or that any other prejudice in effectively defending the proceedings was caused to him. The appellant could not plead or substantiate also that the non-payment was either deliberate or to spite him and not due to his own fault. It is ultimately a question of prejudice. Unless prejudice is shown and established, mere non-payment of subsistence allowance cannot ipso facto be a ground to vitiate the proceedings in every case. It has to be specifically pleaded and established as to in what way the affected employee is handicapped because of non-receipt of subsistence allowance. Unless that is done, it cannot be held as absolute proposal in law that non-payment of subsistence allowance amounts to denial of opportunity and vitiates departmental proceedings.” 15. It is thus clear that the payment of subsistence allowance to the delinquent employee has been held to be mandatory and that is the reason when a suspended employee was not paid subsistence allowance during the period when the application of the management seeking permission to dismiss the workman was pending, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the management was bound to pay the subsistence allowance. 16.In “Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki Vs. Presiding Officer & Anr.”, reported in (1986) 3 SCC 131 , while the workman was suspended and management's application under Section 33 (1) or 33 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act for permission to dismiss the workman was pending, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the management was bound to pay subsistence allowance to the workman. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under, “The proceedings before the Tribunal very often take a long time to come to an end. Because it is difficult to anticipate the result of the application made before the Tribunal, the workman against whom the application is made should be paid some amount by way of subsistence allowance to enable him to maintain himself and the members of his family and also to meet the expenses of the litigation before the Tribunal. Because it is difficult to anticipate the result of the application made before the Tribunal, the workman against whom the application is made should be paid some amount by way of subsistence allowance to enable him to maintain himself and the members of his family and also to meet the expenses of the litigation before the Tribunal. And if no amount is paid during the pendency of such an application it has to be held that the workman concerned has been denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Such denial leads to violation of principles of natural justice and consequently vitiates the proceedings before the Tribunal under Section 33 (3) and any decision given in those proceedings against the workman concerned. Therefore, in cases where during the pendency of the applications for permission under Section 33 (1) or (3) the management has not paid any subsistence allowance, it can pay the same to the workman and continue the proceedings. But in a case where the proceedings are completed and the order of dismissal is successfully challenged on the ground of non-payment of subsistence allowance for the period of suspension during the pendency of the application under Section 33 (1) or (3) it shall be open to the management to ask for the permission of the authority again under Section 33 (1) or 33 (3) after paying or offering to pay to the workman concerned within a reasonable time to be fixed by the authority concerned the arrears of subsistence allowance at the rate stated above.” 17.In “State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale”, reported in (1983) 3 SCC 387 , Rule 151 (1) (ii) (b), second proviso of Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959, which provided payment of only a nominal subsistence allowance of Re 1 per month to a suspended government servant upon his conviction during pendency of the appeal was held unreasonable, unconstitutional and void. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, “20...........The contention of the appellant that even the nominal sum of Re 1 per month is subsistence allowance for a civil servant under suspension is as unreasonable as the contention of the appellant that what should be the subsistence allowance for a civil servant under suspension is for the authority empowered to frame rules under Article 309 of the Constitution to consider and that the civil servant who has entered service is bound by the second proviso. The sum of Re 1 per month can never sustain a civil servant for even a day much less for a month. 23. ........I hold that the second proviso is unreasonable and void and that a civil servant under suspension is entitled to the normal subsistence allowance even after his conviction by the trial court pending consideration of his appeal filed against his conviction until the appeal is disposed of finally one way or the other, whether he is on bail or lodged in prison on conviction by the trial court.........” 18. However, when the departmental proceeding is challenged on the ground that the employee was denied an opportunity to effectively defend himself due to non-payment of subsistence allowance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in such a situation, the employee must show and establish that during the departmental proceeding, he was prevented from effectively contesting the case and defending himself due to non-payment of the subsistence allowance. 19. Adverting to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding on 24.03.2004 and it was adjourned for a day at the request of the petitioner to enable him to arrange defence assistant. While seeking the adjournment, the petitioner had made a statement that on the next date of hearing, he would participate even without his defence assistant. On the next date of hearing the petitioner appeared and proceeding continued till 1.30 p.m. however, thereafter, he left the departmental proceeding without intimating or giving any reason to the enquiry officer and therefore, the enquiry proceeding was concluded on 26.04.2004 ex-parte. On the next date of hearing the petitioner appeared and proceeding continued till 1.30 p.m. however, thereafter, he left the departmental proceeding without intimating or giving any reason to the enquiry officer and therefore, the enquiry proceeding was concluded on 26.04.2004 ex-parte. It is not even pleaded by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition that during the enquiry proceeding, the petitioner raised a grievance that he was prevented from operating his bank account and therefore, he could not withdraw his subsistence allowance and therefore, it was not possible for him to participate in the departmental enquiry. The disciplinary authority has recorded the finding : “Shri Singh never requested for his Defence Assistant till the stage of Regular Hearing, though he had been provided sufficient time and opportunity to arrange Defence Assistant, as the Order of Enquiry was issued by the Disciplinary Authority on 11.08.2003; the Preliminary Hearing started on 28.08.2003; the Inspection of Management Documents was done on 14.02.2004 and the first date of Regular Hearing was initially fixed on 25.02.2004 and the final Regular Hearing started on 24th March, 2004. More-over, arranging Defence Assistant was/is the sole responsibility of the Charged officer, to which Sri Singh was aware of, as recorded in the Enquiry Proceeding. Sri Singh never raised his difficulty at any stage to the Disciplinary Authority in arranging Defence Assistant because of alleged non-payment of subsistence allowance to him earlier. Moreover, subsistence allowance has no relevance for arranging Defence Assistant”. 20. Before the appellate authority, the petitioner raised the following grounds, “4. In order to harass him he was not allowed to withdraw subsistence allowance by the O.Ps in collusion with other officers and members of staff. 5. The O.Ps created economic blockage against him and all his accounts were seized. In absence of money he could not mobilise/utilise and enforce the defence available to him. 6. He had to take loan from L.I.C to meet the necessary basic expenses of his family. 9. He was kept under suspension for about two years without allowing him to withdraw the subsistence allowance. He deposited the entire amount of Rs.1,40,300/-, the amount allegedly defalcated by him, with the Nazir of Civil Court, Deoghar and his suspension should have been revoked.” 21. 9. He was kept under suspension for about two years without allowing him to withdraw the subsistence allowance. He deposited the entire amount of Rs.1,40,300/-, the amount allegedly defalcated by him, with the Nazir of Civil Court, Deoghar and his suspension should have been revoked.” 21. The appellate authority has answered those plea by recording the following findings: “4 & 5.The payment of subsistence allowance etc, are administrative matter and is in no way related to the departmental proceedings and at no point of time the appellant raised this issue during the departmental enquiry. Thus his contention in this regard is not relevant and as such deserves no consideration. 6. This point too has got no relevance and therefore does not merit any consideration. 9. The suspension and payment of subsistence allowance etc. are administrative steps and has no bearing on the departmental proceedings. That he deposited an amount of Rs.1,40,300/- with the Court is also a matter of records only.” 22. A perusal of the documents on record and a perusal of the Writ Petition itself would disclose that the petitioner did not raise the plea at the initial stage that since he has not been permitted to operate his bank account, he is not able to withdraw the subsistence allowance and therefore, he is unable to defend his case effectively. Though, a plea has been raised before the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority that he was not paid the subsistence allowance and therefore, the enquiry stands vitiated, however, both the authorities have recorded a specific finding that during the course of enquiry, the petitioner never raised this plea. 24. Moreover, it is also a matter of record that as many as six charges were framed against the petitioner and all those charges relate to misappropriation, fabrication of documents, forgery, misutilisation of government funds and siphoning of money from the bank account. 25. The following charges were framed against the petitioner: “ARTICLE-I Shri Hari Kishore Singh while posted and functioning as Manager at the Bank's Kadrasal Branch during the period 14-6-1999 till 31-10-2002 acted with malafide intention of pecuniary gain for self in so far as he pocketed himself by forging signature of party and also passed withdrawal from bearing his own S/B A/c. No, without debiting the respective accounts and making direct posting in long book and General ledger. ARTICLE-II The said Shri Hari Kishore Singh while posted and functioning as Manager at Kadrasal Branch during the aforesaid period made fictitious credit entries without any supporting voucher in various account in collusion with the account holders which were later withdrawn thereby siphoning banks money without consideration. ARTICLE-III Shri Hari Kishore Singh while posted and functioning as Manager at Kadrasal Branch during the aforesaid period acted with malafide intention of pecuniary gain for self in so far he availed leave encashment without any sanction from Regional Office. ARTICLE-IV Shri Hari Kishore Singh while posted and functioning as Manager of Kadrasal Branch during the aforesaid period acted with malafide intention in so far he raised a loan in his name without sanction from Regional Office and pocketed the entire amount without opening any loan account. Further Singh also sold his maruti car purchased out of loan from he bank under conveyance loan scheme but the proceed was not credited in the said loan account. ARTICLE-V Shri Hari Kishore Singh while posted and functioning as Manager at Kadrasal Branch during the aforesaid period adjusted the Suspense entries lying in his name by directly debiting SB –I in General Ledger. ARTICLE-VI Shri Hari Kishore Singh while posted and functioning as Manager at Dadrasal Branch during the aforesaid period failed to discharge his duties with integrity and in his best judgment in so far he allowed mis-utilisation of Government fund by liquidating loan accounts by debiting the said fund account without any authority and also concealed sanction of such loans from Regional Office.” 23. From the aforesaid discussion it is established that the petitioner never raised grievance before the enquiry officer that due to non-payment of subsistence allowance, he was substantially handicaped in defending himself in the departmental proceeding. Though, the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority on the issue of non-payment of subsistence allowance may not be in accordance with the settled principles in this regard however, the fact remains that the petitioner raised such a grievance only after the conclusion of the enquiry proceeding. The petitioner has not been able to plead and prove that he could not defend himself effectively because he was prevented from withdrawing the subsistence allowance from his bank account. The petitioner has not been able to plead and prove that he could not defend himself effectively because he was prevented from withdrawing the subsistence allowance from his bank account. The respondents have filed the bank statement as well as the statement indicating credit of subsistence allowance in the salary account of the petitioner and few withdrawals from the said account of the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to produce any evidence that during the departmental proceeding, he made a request to the respondent-bank to permit him to operate his bank account, if he was stopped from doing so, as alleged by him. In fact, he has not been able to produce any evidence even in the present Writ proceeding that he was prevented from operating his salary account. Although, in paragraph nos. 15 and 16 of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has raised a plea of non-payment of the subsistence allowance due to which he was prevented from appearing in the departmental proceeding on 24.03.2004, it is clear that the plea taken by the petitioner is definitely a false plea and an after thought as he had already appeared on the previous date of hearing before the enquiry officer. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that the petitioner has not been able to establish any prejudice caused to him that he was allegedly prevented from withdrawing the subsistence allowance from his salary account. 26. The charges against the petitioner have been proved in course of the departmental enquiry and agreeing with the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal from service which has been affirmed by the appellate authority. A perusal of the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority indicates that both the authorities have applied their mind and the plea raised by the petitioner has been dealt with by both the authorities. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to make out a case on the merits. 27. Further, I find that in cases relating to corruption, misappropriation of money, moral turpitude etc., dismissal from service is the most appropriate punishment. 28. In “U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma”, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 555 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, 23. 27. Further, I find that in cases relating to corruption, misappropriation of money, moral turpitude etc., dismissal from service is the most appropriate punishment. 28. In “U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma”, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 555 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, 23. “In NEKRTC V. H. Amaresh, (2006) 6 SCC 187 and U.P. SRTC V. Vinod Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC 115 this Court held that the punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption/misappropriation, the only punishment is dismissal.” 29. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.