P. Jyothimani, J.

1. The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11. 2008 made in W.P.No.35902 of 2005, dismissing the writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner/appellant has joined the services of the second respondent on 3. 1980 and ultimately, he became the Regional Chief on 15. 1997, which post he was holding till March, 2004. During the year 1997-1998, the writ petitioner, as the Regional Chief, has recommended for sanction of Rs.7 Crores to M/s.Premier Housing and Industrial Enterprises Limited (in short, "the PHIEL"). It was based on his recommendation, the second respondent has disbursed the amount to said PHIEL. The loan was granted on the basis of bank guarantee offered by the Global Trust Bank, without any other security. On the basis that the recommendation given by the petitioner/appellant was not proper, a charge sheet was issued on 12. 2002, for which the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 4. 2002.

3. One Mr.K.C.Batra, one of the Executive Directors of the Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited (in short, "the HUDCO") was appointed as an Inquiry Officer, who examined three witnesses and marked 15 documents. On the side of the delinquent officer one witness was examined and 16 documents were marked. Out of the five charges levelled against the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer found, in his report, that only Charge No.(3) stood proved. The copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer was furnished to the petitioner/appellant, for which the delinquent officer submitted his explanation in respect of charge No.(3), which was held proved by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, taking a different view from that of the Inquiry Officer, passed an order on 3. 2005, holding that all five charges levelled against the petitioner/ appellant stood proved and imposed the following punishment:

(i) reduction to the lower post of Deputy Chief;

(ii) reducing the basic pay by five increments in lower scale; and

(iii) not to consider for promotion for the next two years.

4. It was against the said order of the Disciplinary Authority the delinquent officer approached the first respondent/Appellate Authority, who, by an order dated 8. 2005, has dismissed the appeal, as against which the writ petition came to be filed.

5. The learned Single Judge, having found that the charges levelled against the delinquent officer are grave in nature and relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Vishwa Mohan, [1998] 4 SCC 310 wherein it was held that in the banking business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty need to be preserved by every bank employee, has held that the punishment imposed need not be interfered with. The learned Single Judge has also held that when the Disciplinary Authority differs from the view of the Inquiry Officer, it is not necessary to give further notice in cases where no prejudice is caused to the delinquent officer.

6. 1. Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant would submit that the law is well settled that in cases where the Disciplinary Authority differs from the view of the Inquiry Officer, a notice must be given the delinquent officer again, so as to enable him to give explanation about the proposal of the Disciplinary Authority to pass different orders other than the Inquiry Officers finding. His contention is that the said principle is well established by hierarchy of judgments and in spite of that, the learned Single Judge, having quoted the said judgments, holding that this has been the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court, has only relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Vishwa Mohan, referred supra, and held that inasmuch as the delinquent officer has filed an appeal to the first respondent against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, no prejudice has been caused to the delinquent officer. According to the learned counse