K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.

1. This intra court appeal challenges the order dated 16 July 2010 in W.P.No.23258 of 2001, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of discharge from service.

2. The appellant is stated to be an Ex-Serviceman. After his discharge from military service, he joined the service of State Bank of India on 19 August 1994 at their branch at Gajalnaickanpatti. He was transferred to Hosur branch during the year 1998.

3. While the appellant was working as Watchman in the Hosur Branch of State Bank of India, he was issued with a charge memo on 15 June 1999. There were two substantial charges : one relating to failure on his part to deposit the amount paid by one Jayapal to deposit in his recurring account and the other relating to acceptance of loan from the customers of Bank. The appellant submitted his explanation to the charge memo. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report on the basis of the voluntary statement given by the delinquent, concluding that the charges were proved. The said report was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority therefore, ordered for a de novo enquiry on 1 December 1999. Before the Inquiry Officer, the appellant was assisted by his representative. Since the complainant Jayapal failed to appear during the inquiry proceedings, the Inquiry Officer gave a finding that the first charge was not proved. The Inquiry Officer was of the view that there were enough materials to establish one out of five charges, constituting the second substantial charge.

4. The enquiry report was placed before the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority opined that non examination of Jayapal was not a serious irregularity, especially on account of the confession statement given by the delinquent. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority differed from the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and passed an order on 27 October 2000 and the said finding was communicated to the appellant along with a show cause notice dated 21 November 2000. Thereafter, the authorized representative submitted an explanation on behalf of the appellant. However, the Disciplinary Authority confirmed the punishment proposed, by his order dated 27 December 2000 and accordingly, the appellant was discharged with superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise at that stage and without disqualification from future employment. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Appellate Authority.

5. The order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 17 March 2001 was challenged by the appellant in W.P.No.23258 of 2001. The learned single Judge considered the issue in extenso and arrived at a finding that reasonable opportunity was given to the appellant to prove his case and that there were enough materials to arrive at a finding and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. It is the said order which is impugned in this writ appeal.

6. Though several grounds were raised in support of the present appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant has confined his arguments to the prejudice aspect alone, on account of the failure on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to give a hearing to the delinquent before differing from the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer.

PRINCIPAL SUBMISSIONS:-

7. ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT :-

THE FACTS :-

(i) The appellant was slapped with two charges. The first charge was found not proved. The said finding was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. Before taking a decision to punish the delinquent, on the basis of the differed opinion, opportunity should have been given to the delinquent. However, no such opportunity was given to the appellant;

(ii) The order dated 27 December 2000 shows that the Disciplinary Authority has already arrived at a conclusion that all the charges were proved. The finding was not a tentative one. It was mentioned as charge-wise findings give