JUDGMENT L.N. Reddy, J. 1. These two writ appeals arise out of the judgment, dated 11.04.2008, rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 21301 of 2004. The parties herein are referred to as arrayed in W.A. No. 843 of 2008. 2. The appellant joined the service of Oriental Commerce Bank, as Manager, in the year 1980. He was promoted as Senior Manager, and in 1996, he was posted in the Branch at Ameerpet, Hyderabad. In the year 2001, he was transferred to Secunderabad Branch. 3. On 03.06.2002, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant requiring him to offer his comments about the alleged irregularities pointed out therein, referable to his functioning at Ameerpet Branch. The appellant submitted his explanation, on 10.07.2002. Not satisfied with that, the respondents issued a charge sheet, dated 28.11.2002, wherein 5 charges were framed. Disciplinary enquiry was held. On the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order, dated 04.12.2003, removing him from service. The departmental remedies of appeal and review were not fruitful. Therefore, the appellant filed the writ petition, challenging the order of removal. 4. The appellant pleaded that serious infirmity had crept into the disciplinary proceedings and that he was required to examine his witnesses before the management adduced its evidence and the Enquiry Officer, committed such an irregularity, in spite of repeated protests. It was also pleaded that there was no allegation whatever as to misappropriation of funds, and that every transaction, referred to in the charges, has been approved by the superior authorities. 5. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents by filing a detailed counter-affidavit. They pleaded that the appellant deviated from the prescribed procedure and that resulted in serious loss to the Bank. As to plea of irregularity in the enquiry, it was pleaded that except that there was some change of sequence as regards the examination of witnesses, full opportunity was given to the appellant to put forward his case and that the order of removal did not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. 6. Learned Single Judge recorded a finding to the effect that serious irregularity has crept into the disciplinary proceedings. 6. Learned Single Judge recorded a finding to the effect that serious irregularity has crept into the disciplinary proceedings. It was observed that though it is a case for remanding the matter for fresh enquiry and disposal, the modification of the punishment to the one of compulsory retirement would meet the ends of justice, and accordingly, a relief to that effect was granted. While the appellant i.e. the employee, filed W.A. No. 843 of 2008, not satisfied with the relief granted in the writ petition, the Management i.e. the respondents, filed W.A. No. 41 of 2009, challenging the judgment rendered in the writ petition. 7. Heard Sri J.R. Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. 8. The charges framed against the appellant were extracted by the learned Single Judge in his order. We do not intend to repeat the same. A perusal of the same discloses that the gravamen of the allegation against the appellant is that he deviated from the prescribed procedure, in the context of allowing withdrawals against cheques sent for collection, permitted the crossing of credit limits by some of the customers and opened letters of credit in favour of agencies, which turned out to be fictitious or non-existent. In none of the charges, there was any allegation to the effect that either the appellant has appropriated to himself, the funds of the Bank, or that the Bank has suffered any financial loss. The plea of the appellant that every step taken by him was approved by the superior authorities, remained un-rebutted. The very fact that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated long after the alleged incidents have taken place, discloses that seriousness thereof was not felt for quite some time. This much about the purport of the charges. 9. Irrespective of the gravity of the charges, once the employer decides to conduct disciplinary enquiry, the prescribed procedure is required to be followed. Since it is for the employer to prove the charges, they have to examine the witnesses and file the documents, in support of their contention. It is only after the evidence on behalf of the employer is completed, that the employee can be required to adduce evidence on his behalf. In the instant case, however, the Enquiry Officer deviated from the procedure prescribed. It is only after the evidence on behalf of the employer is completed, that the employee can be required to adduce evidence on his behalf. In the instant case, however, the Enquiry Officer deviated from the procedure prescribed. He required the appellant to adduce his evidence first, and then, allowed the Management of the Bank to adduce its evidence. That one lapse or error is sufficient to set at naught, the entire proceedings. The learned Single Judge took this aspect into account and has chosen to perform the balancing act. The remanding of the matter would have taken its own time, and in the meanwhile, the appellant would have been exposed to much more difficulty. It is brought to our notice that at the time when he was removed from service, his daughter suffered serious injuries in a fire accident, and to meet the expenditure, he had to sell his flat. Taking these and other aspects into account, the learned Single Judge felt the modification of the punishment to the one of compulsory retirement, would meet the ends of justice. 10. We can see the anxiety on the part of the appellant to get a far wider relief. By the time he was removed, he has left over service of about 7 years. As though the denial of emoluments during that period was not sufficient, he had to incur huge expenditure towards the treatment of his daughter. He attained the age of superannuation in the year 2010. 11. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that, even if the order or removal is to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded, for all practical purposes, it would be either an academic exercise or the one of adjustment of reliefs. The possibility of the appellant being put back into service ceased to exist from 2010 onwards. 12. We pondered over the matter in depth, and felt that even while confirming the order compulsory retirement, the appellant can be extended the benefit of revision of pay scales, in the context of payment of the pension. When we indicated this course, both the parties have virtually expressed their satisfaction about the nature of disposal, which we proposed. 13. 12. We pondered over the matter in depth, and felt that even while confirming the order compulsory retirement, the appellant can be extended the benefit of revision of pay scales, in the context of payment of the pension. When we indicated this course, both the parties have virtually expressed their satisfaction about the nature of disposal, which we proposed. 13. We, therefore, dispose of both the appeals directing that, a) the compulsory retirement, as ordered by the learned Single Judge, shall stand confirmed; b) the respondents shall be under obligation to pay the pension to the appellant/writ petitioner, from the date of compulsory retirement calculated on the basis of the emoluments, which he was supposed to draw as on the date of order of removal; c) the appellant shall also be entitled to the revision of pay scales as regards his pension from time to time; d) the pension, which is said to have been stopped during the dependency of the writ petition, shall be restored from 01.01.2015; e) the arrears, be it on account of the revision of pay scales or non-payment of the pension for any period, shall be cleared within a period of four weeks from today. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these appeals shall also stand disposed of.