Short Note : 1. The first two charges, with which alone we are concerned, substantially were : (1) defalcation by the petitioner of sale-proceeds of straw of various crops, and (2) marking of false attendance of eight labourers with the intention of embezzlement of the amount payable as their wages. On denial of these charges by the petitioner, a departmental enquiry was held and Annexure P-3 is the report of the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer held in respect of both the above charges that the charge of misappropriation of money was not proved but the negligence of the petitioner as the supervising officer in charge of these activities had undoubtedly been established. Thus, after recording a clear finding that negligence of the petitioner had been proved in this manner, both these charges were held to be not proved obviously meaning that the greater misconduct of defalcation and embezzlement had not been proved. Accepting this report of the Enquiry Officer, the show cause notice Annexure P-4 was issued by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Rewa Division, mentioning the withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect and censure as the proposed punishment. The petitioner's reply to the show cause notice was not found satisfactory and ultimately by the order Annexure P-5, dated 2-11-1968, the punishment of withholding one increment and censure was awarded. Thereafter, by the same order, it was directed that the period spent under suspension will not be treated as on duty ; the petitioner will not be paid anything in excess of the subsistence allowance ; but the period of suspension will be taken into account for the purpose of pension. The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order which was dismissed by the Director of Agriculture, vide Annexure P-6, dated 5-9-1969. That has led to the filing of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution claiming a suitable writ to quash the orders Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-G. 2. Held : The argument of Shri Pandey is that the appellate order Annexure P-6, dated 5-9-1969, does not show any application of mind by the appellate authority and that it is not in accordance with rule 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (here-in-after called the Rules). We are unable to agree with this criticism. The order clearly shows that the material on record was taken into account. We are unable to agree with this criticism. The order clearly shows that the material on record was taken into account. It is one of affirmance and, therefore, a re-statement of the entire evidence and the reason given by the lower authority was not necessary. The contents of Annexure P-6 do show that the entire record was taken into consideration before passing the final order in appeal. Shri Pandey argues that the question of penalty should also have been considered by the appellate authority in order to decide whether a lesser penalty should be awarded. It may be mentioned that the minor penalties inflicted are the minimum which could have been awarded under rule 10 of the said rules which prescribes the penalties. That being so, there was no occasion to further consider this question from that angle. This argument has no merit and is rejected. 3. Shri Pandey then relies on rule 13 and says that notwithstanding the permissible delegation as aforesaid under rule 12, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings by issuance of the charge-sheet had to be only by the Director and none else. He says this is expressly provided in rule 13. We have no hesitation in rejecting this argument outright as the same is an obvious misreading of rule 13. Sub-rule (1) to rule 13 expressly provides that the Governor or any other authority empowered by him by general or special order may institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant. This part of rule 13 is relied on by Shri Pandey. This itself enables an authority empowered by the Governor under rule 13 to institute disciplinary proceedings. As shown earlier, Joint Director was such an authority duly empowered by the Governor by virtue of the general order Annexure R-4, dated 1-8-1967, prior to any action being initiated against the petitioner. That apart, the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Sardul Singh, 1970 JLJ SN 9 has settled that the protection available under Article 311 (1) of the Constitution does not require that the initiation of proceedings by giving a charge-sheet should also be by appointing authority itself. This argument is clearly misconceived and is, therefore, rejected. 1970 JLJ SN 9, relied on. Petition dismissed.