ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank. 2. An order dated 08.09.2004 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, is under challenge in the present writ application. The order of the Appellate Authority dated 30.03.2005 by which the petitioner’s appeal against the said order dated 08.09.2004 has been rejected, is also under challenge. 3. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner with the issuance of charge-sheet dated 03.07.1999 for a misconduct alleged to have been committed by him during the period when he was posted as Clerk-cum-Cashier at Dinara branch of the Bank. The charges related to misappropriation of Bank money and forging of documents etc. The petitioner filed his written statement of defence in reply to the charges, denying the allegations. Accordingly, the departmental enquiry proceeded. However, in course of enquiry, the petitioner admitted his guilt. This fact is not in dispute. Since the petitioner accepted his guilt in course of the departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him. Thereafter, a second show-cause notice was issued to him by the Disciplinary Authority supplying him a copy of the enquiry report. The petitioner filed his reply to the second show-cause notice. This time, he took stand that the Presenting Officer and the concerned Branch Manager persuaded him to accept his guilt and assured him that if he did so, they would save the petitioner from imposition of any punishment. He took a plea in his second show-cause reply that it was because of such false assurance that the petitioner had accepted his guilt. He again denied the allegations against him and questioned the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority however, did not find the second show-cause reply acceptable and imposed the punishment upon him by the impugned order dated 08.09.2004. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order of the Disciplinary Authority which was also dismissed by an order dated 30.03.2005. Nearly three years thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ application challenging the order of the Disciplinary Authority. 4. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order of the Disciplinary Authority which was also dismissed by an order dated 30.03.2005. Nearly three years thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ application challenging the order of the Disciplinary Authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders mainly on the ground that the plea taken by him in second show-cause reply has not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority and the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority are cryptic and nonspeaking and do not disclose any application of mind on the points taken by him in his second show-cause reply and in his memo of appeal. He has assailed the order of the Appellate Authority on the ground that this is a one line order which does not at all discuss the petitioner’s points taken in his memo of appeal. He has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court reported in Ramji Mochi vs. Central Office, Central Bank of India, 1999 (2) PLJR 370 and Ram Narayan Renu vs. State of Bihar, 1996 (1) PLJR 196. 5. It has also been submitted that the documents were not supplied to the petitioner which were relevant for the petitioner to develop his defence in course of the disciplinary proceeding. It has been contended that the report of the Enquiry Officer was also not served. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank on the other hand opposing the relief prayed for by the petitioner contends that the petitioner admitted his guilt in course of the disciplinary proceeding which has not been disputed even by the petitioner in the present proceeding. That being so, the plea that he accepted his guilt as persuaded by the Branch Manager and the Presenting Officer is an afterthought and cannot be accepted. He further submits that copy of the enquiry report was given to him and the disciplinary Authority held him guilty on the basis of material on records of the disciplinary proceeding which included his admission of guilt in course of the departmental enquiry. 7. From the pleadings in the writ application, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner admitted his guilt in course of the disciplinary proceeding. In my opinion, the petitioner now cannot take a plea that he was not supplied any document or he was not given sufficient opportunity. 7. From the pleadings in the writ application, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner admitted his guilt in course of the disciplinary proceeding. In my opinion, the petitioner now cannot take a plea that he was not supplied any document or he was not given sufficient opportunity. Once he admitted his guilt, no further inquiry was required. The findings of the Disciplinary Authority holding the petitioner guilty of the charge, therefore, cannot be faulted with. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently submitted that order of the appellate authority is unreasoned and is in violation of principles of natural justice. I do not find any violation of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, the petitioner himself accepted his guilt in course of disciplinary proceeding. His subsequent plea that he accepted his guilt as persuaded by the Branch Manager and Presenting Officer, taken in his memo of appeal or in his reply to the second show-cause notice was rightly not taken into account by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. 9. The impugned orders do not need interference. This application is accordingly dismissed.