DODDAKALE GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Petition and Writ Petition No. 42494 of 1982 are directed against orders passed pursuant to a common disciplinary proceedings held against petitioners. Though they are heard together, I propose to make separate orders having regard to peculiar features of each case. ( 2 ) GOVERNMENT by its order dated 4th December, 19?3 ordered departmental enquiry under Rule 13 (1) read with Rule 11 (2) of C. C. A. Rules against petitioners appointing Assistant commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division, Kolar, as Inquiry Officer to enquire into certain lapses committed in disbursement of crop loan to ryots at Nangali Circle, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar district, starting from Grama Sevak to Block Development Officer, based on preliminary enquiry report. Preliminary enquiry report disclosed imprudent haste in sanctioning loan on the date of receipt of application itself and the way in which loans were sanctioned to persons who are already dead or in the names of fictitious persons that officials have colluded with one another with ulterior motive and misappropriated a sum of Rs. 14,125/- by their fraudulent acts. ( 3 ) CHARGE against petitioner in this petition is: "you, Sri P. Sundararajan, were the Gramasevak of Padmaghatta Circle and in additional charge of the Gramasevak of Nangali Circle during the year 1972-73. Out of the funds placed at the disposal of the Block Development Officer, Mulbagal, under emergency Agricultural short term loan, you had built up records for sanction of loans amounting to Rs. 15. 565/- in favour of 33 ryots residing in Nangali Circle of Mulbagal taluk, in the month of March 1973. On the strength of your records the Block Development Officer has sanctioned the loan and the ryots were delivered inputs like fertilizers by the Agro Kendra mulbagal and "kasaba S. C. S. Mulbagal. etc. " statement of imputations contained in articles of charges state that he had filled up crop loan records in favour of persons who are either dead or whose whereabouts are not known or in favour of persons who impersonated the real land holders, in collusion with one Venkatesh and other accused Government officials and built up false records without verifying correctness of particulars mentioned in applications with reference to revenue records like record of rights, index of lands, R. T. C. etc. , and got loans sanctioned frivolously and misappropriated the entire amount of Rs. 14. 125/ -. , and got loans sanctioned frivolously and misappropriated the entire amount of Rs. 14. 125/ -. Acts of prompting salesman of Agro Kendra of Mulbagal, to deliver inputs in all those cases and identifying and attesting signature of drawees as persons in whose favour loans have been sanctioned, though not seen them, constituted grave misconduct and negligence. The specially empowered authority relying on both, oral and documentary evidence, placed on record during enquiry, held charges are proved. Divisional Commissioner as one of the heirarchy of authority under C. C. A. Rules, but for initiation of proceedings by Government to whom records were forwarded for onward submission to Government concurring with the views of inquiry Officer recommended certain punishments. Government in its order dated 29th december 1982 accepted recommendation and imposed certain punishment on others while decision in respect of petitioner was deferred. Finding recorded by subsequent order dated 3rd june 1983 on consideration of representation made pursuant to a second show cause notice reads thus : ". . . . . . . . A perusal of the deposition of PWs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 19, 20, 22 and 23rd the relevant 1. L. R. and RR extracts referred to in respect of their holdings (Lands) on which the loans are stated to have been sanctioned and amounts disbursed clearly establish that the AGO has built up records in favour of either the deceased persons or the persons who are not residing in the village and that he (the AGO) has also attested the signatures of/ltms of fictitious persons. . . . . . . . . . . . Some of the instances narrated above clearly establish that there are serious irregularities committed by this AGO-Shri P. Sundararaj while building up the loan records in collusion with one Sri M. Venkatesh. Thus, he is liable for grave misconduct, negligence and misappropriation of loan amount of Rs. 14. 125/- involved in all these loan records. . . . The Enquiry Officer has rightly held that the charges framed against the AGO Shri P. Sundararaj are proved beyond doubt. " and ordered dismissal of petitioner from service. Thus, he is liable for grave misconduct, negligence and misappropriation of loan amount of Rs. 14. 125/- involved in all these loan records. . . . The Enquiry Officer has rightly held that the charges framed against the AGO Shri P. Sundararaj are proved beyond doubt. " and ordered dismissal of petitioner from service. ( 4 ) FIRST contention urged by Sri S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar, Learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, to invalidate impugned order is that Government has neither framed articles of charges nor authorised Assistant Commissioner to frame charges and in the absence of such authorisation charges framed by Assistant Commissioner-Inquiry Officer-being without competence, subsequent enquiry held thereon and punishment imposed should be held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in M. K. Nagaraja -v.-State of Karnataka, ILR (Karnataka) 1979 (1) 564. Sri S. V. Narasimhan, Learned High Court Government Pleader, contended that decision in nagaraja's case1 is of no assistance as enquiry is held in accordance with the Rules then in force. Alternatively, it is submitted that direction to hold an enquiry in accordance with Rule 11 of the rules includes right to frame articles of charges. Government ordered to hold an enquiry on 4th december 1973, wheres Rule (4) of Rule 11 is amended on 12th December 1973. Sub-rule (2) of rule 11, than in force reads thus : "11. Procedure for imposing major penalties : 1. xxx xxx xxx 2. The Disciplinary Authority or any authority specifically empowered by it in this behalf shall frame definite charges on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is proposed to be held, such charges, together with a statement of the allegations on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the Government servant, and he shall be required to submit, within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority or any authority specially empowered by it in this behalf, a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. " on a comparison of old and amended rule, I notice that words 'cause to be delivered' are absent in rule, then in force. Words 'cause to be delivered' impelled conclusion in Nagaraja's case1 that disciplinary Authority must frame articles of charges or cause to be delivered to delinquent official. " on a comparison of old and amended rule, I notice that words 'cause to be delivered' are absent in rule, then in force. Words 'cause to be delivered' impelled conclusion in Nagaraja's case1 that disciplinary Authority must frame articles of charges or cause to be delivered to delinquent official. Hence, Nagaraja's case1 is of no assistance. Phraseology of rule, then in force, lend support to the view that Disciplinary Authority or specially empowered authority, as the case, may frame articles of charges, as that form the basis for holding an enquiry. That is also what is stated in Official Memorandum in O. M. No. GAD (OM) 3 CAR 57 dated 14th December 1957 as procedural instruction regarding conduct of enquiry :- "2. Issue of charge sheet :- (a) Once the authority competent to appoint the Enquiry Officer is satisfied that a departmental enquiry is necessary, or he is directed by higher authority, to hold a departmental enquiry, the first step will be to appoint an enquiry officer (if a higher authority has directed the officer to hold the enquiry himself, he himself will be the Enquiry Officer ). The enquiry Officer should frame a charge sheet containing : (i) definite charge or charges ; (ii) under each charge the grounds on which that charge is based ; and (iii) any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders in the case. Each charge should be drawn up clearly and precisely and care should be taken to avoid vagueness. " Hence. I find no substance in this contention. ( 5 ) SECONDLY, Assistant Commissioner being a Disciplinary Authority to impose minor penalty is also competent to frame articles of charges. As has bean held by Supreme Court in State of madhya Pradesh and ors.-v.- Shardul Singh, [1970 (20 )FLR81 ], (1970 )1 SCC108 , [1970 ]3 SCR302 which reads thus :" article 411 (1) does not in terms require that the authority empowered under that provision to dismiss or remove an official, should itself initiate or conduct the enquiry preceding the dismissal or removal of the officer or even that that enquiry should be done at its Instance. But for the incorporation of Article 411 in the Constitution even in respect of matters provided therein rules could have been framed under Article 409. The provisions of Article 411 confer additional rights on the civil servants. But for the incorporation of Article 411 in the Constitution even in respect of matters provided therein rules could have been framed under Article 409. The provisions of Article 411 confer additional rights on the civil servants. It is not possible to agree with the High Court that the guarantee given under Article 411 (1) includes within itself a further guarantee that the disciplinary proceedings resulting in dismissal or removal of a civil servant should also be initiated and conducted by the authorities mentioned in the Article. " enquiry held and punishment imposed on articles of charges Framed by Assitant Commissioner can neither be held to be illegal nor without jurisdiction. ( 6 ) SECOND contention canvassed for petitioner is that on appointment of Assistant Commissioner as specially empowered authority to bold an enquiry and to submit report. Divisional commissioner, is nobody to express his views one way or the other and decision which rests on such recommendation being illegal cannot be sustained in law. Unlike in Writ Petition No. 42494 of 1982, petitioner has been furnished with a copy of recommendation of Divisional commissioner as also enquiry report. He has offered his explanation. Just as Government acts on recommendation of Vigilance Commissioner received along with Inquiry Officer's report, if government has chosen to act on the recommendation of Divisional Commissioner, I find no illegality or irregularity in such procedure. Government has not relied on any material which is not disclosed to petitioner to reach its conclusion. No doubt, Deputy Commissioner is the appointing Authority for Village Accountant. But, selections require approval of Divisional commissioner, Divisional Commissioner is one of the heirarchy of authorities to deal with disciplinary matter under C. C. A. Rules. In this view, decision of Government can neither be said to have been based on irrelevant or extraneous consideration nor any rules or principles of natural justice is infringed. ( 7 ) LASTLY, it is urged that petitioner was only an in-charge Village Accountant and has acted on the advice of Venkatesh. He is expected to process application/s in accordance with law after verifying the same with reference to entries in revenue records whether he is incharge or a permanent incumbent. Application/s processed for sanction of loan or assistance to ryots are subsequently finalised at the level of Block Development Officer and sanctioned. Particulars furnished by petitioner forms the basis for sanction of loans. Application/s processed for sanction of loan or assistance to ryots are subsequently finalised at the level of Block Development Officer and sanctioned. Particulars furnished by petitioner forms the basis for sanction of loans. Hence, he cannot absolve himself of the charges on the plea that he was only an incharge official. ( 8 ) HENCE, I find no merit. Writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.