SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) BOTH sides have argued the petition for final disposal. Hence this petition is decided by this order. ( 2 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 16-4-1986 bearing no. A1 P2 D (Annexure-R) passed by the second respondent. He has also sought for quashing the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer bearing reference No. A1 R1 A (PS) dated 4-4-1986 (Annexure-S ). Lastly he has sought for quashing the order dated 25- 8-1987 in No. A1 P2 D (Annexure-U) passed by the appellate Authority. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is a Divisional Officer (Personnel) in the first respondent establishment. A charge sheet was served on him containing three charges as per the charge memo dated 9-1-1985 produced as Annexure-G: The following are the charges :-"1. You have claimed Rs. 585/- in your tta bill towards transportation of personal effects even though the personal effects were transported in a contractor's lorry from Ambikanagar to Jog without incurring any expenditure on your part; 2. You preferred one more claim amounting to Rs. 1375. 64 towards alleged transportation of office furniture through lorry No. MYT 5880 of M/s. Jai Hind Transport Company. Bhadravathi by producing a lorry way bill dated 24-1-1983 and a receipt from M/s. Basava Trading Company, bhadravathi, even though the said office furniture was transported along with you personal effects in the lorry belonging to a contractor at Ambikanagar for which you did not incur any expenditure. 3. You obtained fictitious and false advance receipt from M/s. Basava Trading Company, Bhadravathi by deputing one of your representative with an intention to get unintended monetary benefit from the Corporation not only through your TTA bill but also separately by preferring a fictitious bill and receipt. " ( 4 ) ALONG with the charge memo, statement of imputation and the list of documents and the list of witnesses were also furnished. The petitioner submitted his first statement of defence dated 28-1-1985 as per Annexure- h denying the charges. Thereafter he has also submitted additional statement of defence dated 9-2-1985 as per Annexure-N. ( 5 ) WHEN the case was posted for enquiry on 15-2-1985 before the witnesses were examined by the Enquiring Officer, the petitioner made certain statements which were incorporated in the proceedings of the enquiry Officer dated 15-2-1985. Thereafter he has also submitted additional statement of defence dated 9-2-1985 as per Annexure-N. ( 5 ) WHEN the case was posted for enquiry on 15-2-1985 before the witnesses were examined by the Enquiring Officer, the petitioner made certain statements which were incorporated in the proceedings of the enquiry Officer dated 15-2-1985. The record of that proceeding dated 15-2-1985 is produced as Annexure-O. The same reads thus:"proceedings OF THE ENQUIRY into THE CHARGES AGAINST SRI c. R. SREERAM DOPJ PERTAINING TO transportation OF OFFICE FURNITURE AND PERSONAL EFFECTS. The enquiry into the charges against Sri c. R. Srceram, DOP/j for transportation charges of office furniture and personal effects was continued on 15-2-1985. "the first charge pertains to claim of Sri c. R. Sreerarn for Rs. 585/- towards transportation of personal effects from Ambikanagar to Jog without incurring any expenditure on his part for this purpose. In the statements of defence dated 28-1-1985 and 9-2-85 Sri Sreeram has clarified on this point that he is not required to furnish any proof for having incurred any expenditure in the transportation of personal effects on transfer and that his claim of rs. 585/- on this account is in accordance with the Rules. This was emphasised during the course of the enquiry by Sri Sreeram, the second charge pertains to the claim for Rs. 1375. 64 towards alleged transportation of office furniture through lorry No. MYT 5880 by M/s. Jai Hind transportation co. , Bhadravathi by producing lorry way bill dated 24-1-1983 and a receipt from M/s basava Trading Co. , Bhadravathi, though the said office furniture along with the personal effects were transported in contractors lorry without incurring any expenditure. Sri Sreeram agreed that he has transported the office furniture, in a contractor's lorry (GDZ 5499) and that he has not incurred any expenditure for this purpose. He has however, stated that he had to incur some expenditure incidental to transportation though it may not amount to the claim of Rs. 1375. 64 preferred by him. Replying to the quarry by the Presenting Officer, Sri Sreeram clarified that he does not remember the actual amount. He also stated that he does not remember the actual amount. He also stated that he has not derived any monetary benefit from his clairr,. The third charge pertains to obtaining false advance receipts from M/s. Basava trading Co. Replying to the quarry by the Presenting Officer, Sri Sreeram clarified that he does not remember the actual amount. He also stated that he does not remember the actual amount. He also stated that he has not derived any monetary benefit from his clairr,. The third charge pertains to obtaining false advance receipts from M/s. Basava trading Co. , Bhadravathi by deputing one of his representatives with the intention of deriving un-intended monetary benefit from the Corporation. In the light of his above submission on charge No. 2, he has no further submission to make on this charge (No. 3 ). The Presenting Officer stated that the charges at No. 2 and 3 stand substantially established and accepted by Sri C. R. Sreeram and there is no need to go further with the enquiry. Replying to the querry of the Enquiry Officer, sri Sreeram stated that he has no further submission to make in this regard. In view of the above, the Enquiry Officer closed the enquiry the Enquiry Officer thanked Sri M. S. Krishnamurthy, Presenting Officer and Sri c. R. Sreeram, the charge sheeted officer for their co-operation in the conduct of the enquiry," ( 6 ) THE original records are produced. The original records reveal that Annexure-O is signed by the petitioner at the bottom of each page. On the basis of the proceeding recorded on 15-2- 1985 as per Annexure-O, the Enquiry Officer recorded his findings on all the three charges as follows:"findings of the Enquiry : charge No. 1: According to TTA rules at present in force in the Corporation, employees are not required to furnish any proof in support of the expenditure incurred by them on transportation of themselves and their personal effects. The charge is not sustained. It is observed that the officer has shown the distance from Ambikanagar to jog as 195 KM in his TTA bill and as 158 km in his claim towards transportation of office furniture vide his letter No. DOP J dated 31-3-1983. The excess amount claimed by the officer is Rs. 159. 10. The charge is not sustained. It is observed that the officer has shown the distance from Ambikanagar to jog as 195 KM in his TTA bill and as 158 km in his claim towards transportation of office furniture vide his letter No. DOP J dated 31-3-1983. The excess amount claimed by the officer is Rs. 159. 10. Charge No. 2 : Sri Sreeram has agreed during the course of the enquiry that he has transported the office furniture in lorry No. GDZ 5499 belonging to a contractor and not in lorry No. MYT 5880 belonging to M/s Jai Hind transport company, Bhadravathi and that he has not incurred any expenditure on this account. The charge No. 2 is therefore sustained. Charge No. 3 : The records show that Sri sreeram has obtained fictitious and false receipts towards his claim for transportation of office furniture from ambikanagar to Jog, from M/s Jai Hind transport Co. , and also M/s Basava trading Co. , both of Bhadravathi. The charge sheeted officer has no defence against this charge. The charge is therefore sustained. Sri Sreeram is a Divisional Officer, personnel in KPCL with considerable experience. He has not only preferred false claim but preserved with it for as long as 21 months till the enquiry was ordered. He was not even satisfied when head Office accorded approval for a smaller amount of Rs. 480/- for this item. Officers of the rank of Divisional Officers and above are expected to set high standard of integrity and honesty in the discharge of their duties. The records show that the charge-sheeted officer had the intention of deriving unintended monetary benefit out of this claim and he made a calculated attempt towards this end. The charge sheeted officer has co-operated with the enquiry and repented for his various acts of omission and commissions. The following documents are enclosed: i) written statements of defence of Sri c. R. Sreeram. ii) proceedings of the enquiry held on 4-2-1985 and 15-2-1985 in triplicate. " ( 7 ) AFTER receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer as per Annexure-Q which contained his findings on all the three charges as above, the Disciplinary Authority viz. The following documents are enclosed: i) written statements of defence of Sri c. R. Sreeram. ii) proceedings of the enquiry held on 4-2-1985 and 15-2-1985 in triplicate. " ( 7 ) AFTER receipt of the report of the Enquiry Officer as per Annexure-Q which contained his findings on all the three charges as above, the Disciplinary Authority viz. , the managing Director of the first respondent accepted the finding and imposed the penalty under Rule 5 (2) r/w Rule 6 of the Karnataka Power Corporation Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) withholding of two future increments with cumulative effect. ( 8 ) THERE was an appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Directors. The Boatd of directors in its 107th Meeting held on 7-7-1987, accepted the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary authority, and dismissed the appeal. The decision of the Board of Directors was communicated to the petitioner as per the communication dated 25/26-8-87 bearing no. A1 P2 D (Annexure-U ). ( 9 ) SRI Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced the following contentions: 1) that in view of the contents of the documents produced as a Annexures-A, B and C the matter was treated as closed, therefore it was not open to initiate the departmental proceeding. 2) that as the petitioner had denied the charges framed against him the disciplinary authority was required to prove the charges. As no evidence has been recorded the finding recorded by the enquiry officer and the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority are vitiated, inasmuch as they are not only violative of the Rules but also of the principles of natural justice and it amounts to imposing of penalty without proving the charges. ; 3) that the procedure followed by the enquiry officer in recording the statement of the petitioner before the commencement of the enquiry and recording the findings on the basis of the statement is unwarranted; 4) that the petitioner has signed the proceeding of the 15th February 1985 on a bona fide belief that it is an order sheet and not the statement; 5) that the appellate order is not a speaking order. ( 10 ) IN the normal circumstances all these contentions would have been accepted. ( 10 ) IN the normal circumstances all these contentions would have been accepted. But in the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears to me that it is not possible to accept any one of these contentions. My reasons are as follows: it is not possible to accept that the matter was closed and therefore it was not open to the disciplinary authority to frame any articles of charges and hold an enquiry. Under annexure-A, pursuant to the letter dated 19-5-1983 addressed by the petitioner in respect of the expenditure claimed to have been incurred by him for transportation of office furniture by engaging a private lorry, the sanction was accorded and approval was granted to the extent of Rs. 480/ -. The petitioner disputed that amount, therefore sought for further clarification by his letter dated 5-8-83 as per Annexure-B. The managing Director informed the petitioner by the communication dated 16-8-83 that subject matter under reference had been treated as closed, hence no further correspondence should be entertained. Pursuant to the order as per Annexure-A dated 27-6-83 the petitioner preferred the claim for rs. 480/ -. In this regard the respondents have stated in the statement of objections thus:"thereafter he prepared a claim for rs. 480/- as approved by the Corporation for payment. The Accounts Officer sought for some clarifications and insisted upon the production of bill and cash receipt duly discharged by the transporter so as to arrange for payment. A scrutiny "of the bill and the receipt produced by the petitioner revealed that they were issued by different agencies and on different dates. As the replies furnished by the petitioner to the querries raised by the Accounts Officer were found to be discrepant and contradictory, the matter was referred to the Chief Vigilance officer of the Corporation for investi gation. As the investigation disclosed a prima facie case of preferring a false claim supported by fictitious vouchers amounting to misconduct on the part of the Petitioner, a show cause notice as per annexure-D dated 1-12-1984 was issued to him as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. He submitted a reply as per Annexure-E dated 8-12-1984. As the investigation disclosed a prima facie case of preferring a false claim supported by fictitious vouchers amounting to misconduct on the part of the Petitioner, a show cause notice as per annexure-D dated 1-12-1984 was issued to him as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. He submitted a reply as per Annexure-E dated 8-12-1984. As it was found to be not satisfactory, the corporation decided to hold a departmental Enquiry against him by the chief Engineer (Civil Investigation) Sri S. Veeranna as Enquiry Officer and the project Engineer late M. S. Krishnamurthy as the Presiding Officer. He was also issued a Memo as per Annexure-G dated 9-1-1985 containing Articles of Charges requiring him to submit his statement of defence within 10 days. "thus from the aforesaid statement contained in the statement of objections supported by the records it is apparent that what was treated closed by the Managing Director through his letter dated 16-8-83 (Annexure- c) was in respect of the amount payable regarding the transportation of office furniture i. e. Rs. 480/ -. It was for the petitioner to prove by producing necessary vouchers. In that process it was discovered that there was a case for holding a disciplinary enquiry. Therefore it is not possible to hold, on a reading of Annexures- A, B and C that at any point of time a disciplinary proceeding was proposes to be held against the petitioner on the charges in question and on further reconsideration of the same it was treated as closed. In fact no disciplinary proceeding was proposed to be held against the petitioner until the Accounts Department discovered the discrepancies. Therefore the contention that having regard to the communication dated 16-8-83 of the Managing director, the disciplinary proceeding must be deemed to have been closed, cannot at all be accepted. Accordingly the first contention is rejected. ( 11 ) CONTENTIONS 2, 3 and 4: on 15-2-1985 when the case was posted for enquiry, the statement made by the petitioner had been incorporated in the order sheet. As already pointed out the original records reveal that the petitioner has signed the order sheet at the bottom of each page and at the end of the proceedings. This proceedings of 15th February 1985 has already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph of this order. As already pointed out the original records reveal that the petitioner has signed the order sheet at the bottom of each page and at the end of the proceedings. This proceedings of 15th February 1985 has already been reproduced in the preceding paragraph of this order. No doubt the petitioner in his statement of defence filed on 28-1-1985 had denied the charges. But on the date when the case was posted for enquiry, he made a further statement which was recorded in the order sheet of 15-2-1985 by the enquiry officer as per Annexure-O. The stand of the petitioner in this regard is that annexure-O is not a statement, it is only the order sheet and be has signed it as order sheet only, and as long as there is no statement as such recorded as stated by the petitioner, it cannot be treated as a statement so as to absolve the disciplinary authority of its burden of proving the charges framed against the petitioner. In this regard the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Ace Babcock limited, Shahabad v Bhimsha and Another (1987 (71) Factory Journal Reports page 384 and also on a decision of the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Companies v Their workmen (1963 (2) Labour Law Journal, 3%) and also a Division Bench decision of the high Court of Madhya Pradesh in ramashakal Yadav v Chief Security Officer, railway Protection Force, Bombay V. T. and others, (AIR 1967 M. P. 91 ). The decision in A. C. C. Babcock's case related to a workman. In the case of a domestic enquiry against a workman it is an established position of law that whenever a charge is framed against a workman, and it is denied by him, it is on the management to prove the charge in accordance with Rules by adducing evidence and not to prove the charge by cross-examining the workmen. In the case of a domestic enquiry against a workman it is an established position of law that whenever a charge is framed against a workman, and it is denied by him, it is on the management to prove the charge in accordance with Rules by adducing evidence and not to prove the charge by cross-examining the workmen. It is also established position in law that an Officer who is facing a disciplinary proceeding cannot at all be equated to a workman who is normally an illiterate and even if literate, will not be in a position to understand the complicated questions of fact and law whereas it is not so in the case of an officer enjoying the high status in the institution and he himself is empowered to hold disciplinary proceedings against certain of his subordinates. Therefore it is not possible to hold that the decision in Babcock's case can be applicable to the case on hand. Similarly in Associated Cement companies' case the domestic enquiry was against the workman. It is in this connection the Supreme Court observed thus:"the other infirmity in the present proceedings flows from the fact that the enquiry has commenced with a close examination of Malak Ram himself. Some of the questions put to Malak Ram clearly sound as questions in cross-examination. It is necessary to emphasize that in domestic enquiries the employer should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman charged, give an opportunity to the workman to cross-examine the said evidence and then should the workmen be asked whether he wants to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. It seems us that it is not fair in domestic enquiries against industrial employees that at the very commencement of the enquiry the employee should be closely cross examined even before any other evidence is led against him. In dealing with domestic enquiries held in such industrial matters, we cannot overlook the fact that in a large majority of cases, employees are likely to be ignorant and so it is necessary not to expose them to the risk of cross- examining in the manner adopted in the present enquiry proceedings. In dealing with domestic enquiries held in such industrial matters, we cannot overlook the fact that in a large majority of cases, employees are likely to be ignorant and so it is necessary not to expose them to the risk of cross- examining in the manner adopted in the present enquiry proceedings. " (Emphasis supplied) the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court has been followed by the High Court of madhya Pradesh in Ramashakal Yadav's case on the proposition, that those observations of the Supreme Court will equally apply to an enquiry against the Government Servant. The observations made by the supreme Court are not applicable to the disciplinary proceedings against an official who is well versed with the rules of procedure and who himself is empowered to hold disciplinary proceeding against certain of his sub-or- dinates. Further the norms that are applicable to the domestic enquiry held against an illiterate workman and the procedures to be followed cannot at all be applied to the disciplinary proceeding held against an official. Therefore it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Companies' case is applicable to the facts of the present case. Similarly it is not possible to agree with the view of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh that the norms applicable to the domestic enquiries in the industrial matters held against the workmen will apply with equal force to an enquiry against a Government servant. The observations of the Supreme Court as underlined above in Associated Cement companies' Case are confined to domestic enquiries against industrial employees. ( 12 ) THE next question for consideration is as to whether the proceeding recorded on 15-2-1985 contains a statement of the petitioner which can be held to establish the charges 2 and 3 framed against him. The charges 2 and 3 have already been reproduced in the earlier portion of this order. The proceeding dated 15-2-1985 reveals that the petitioner stated that the office furniture were transported along with his personal effects in a contractor's lorry without any expenditure. The petitioner also gave the contractor's lorry No. as GDZ 5499 and specifically stated that in that regard he had not incurred any expenditure. The proceeding dated 15-2-1985 reveals that the petitioner stated that the office furniture were transported along with his personal effects in a contractor's lorry without any expenditure. The petitioner also gave the contractor's lorry No. as GDZ 5499 and specifically stated that in that regard he had not incurred any expenditure. Of course he had stated that he had incurred certain incidental expenses, but he stated that he was not in a position to state as to what was the actual amount of incidental expenditure incurred by him. Regarding Charge No. 3 which related to furnishing of receipt from a different concern he stated that in the light of what he stated with reference to Charge No. 2 had no further statement to make. From the proceeding of 15-2-1985 which is signed by the petitioner it is established that even though the petitioner transported the office furniture along with his personal effects in a contractor's lorry bearing No. GDZ 5499 without incurring any expenditure, nevertheless he made a claim for Rs. 1375. 64 and claimed the same on the basis that he had transported the office furniture through lorry no. MYT 5880 belonging to Jai Hind transport Company, Bhadravathi and in support of that he produced the receipt by m/s Basava Trading Company. Thus it is clear that without incurring any expenditure for transporting the office furniture the petitioner claimed the amount of Rs. 1375. 64 by producing the receipt of the concern which did not transport the office furniture and also by furnishing lorry No. as MYT 5880 which was also not engaged for transporting the office furniture. In the light of this statement, charge No. 3 automatically stood proved, because that related to the false receipt obtained from M/s Basava trading Company, Bhadravathi and produced by the petitioner. It is to be remembered that this is a domestic enquiry held against an educated, highly placed officer who himself is empowered to hold a disciplinary proceeding against certain of his subordinates. Such an officer, it is hard to believe, could have signed the proceeding of 15-2-1985 without reading and without understanding its implications, closing his eyes and thinking it was only an order sheet. Such a stand taken by the petitioner is also denied by the respondents in the statement of objections. Such an officer, it is hard to believe, could have signed the proceeding of 15-2-1985 without reading and without understanding its implications, closing his eyes and thinking it was only an order sheet. Such a stand taken by the petitioner is also denied by the respondents in the statement of objections. To say the least this is again an another attempt made in this Court by the petitioner to get over an order of penally imposed against him. It is also relevant to notice thai the enquiry officer himself has filed an affidavit denying this aspect of the matter. In such a case when the delinquent official knowing full well the charge and un- dcrstanding full well She implications of the statement he was making and if on the basis of such statment of the petitioner the charges 2 and 3 had been held proved, it is not possible to hold that the proceeding is vitiated, because the disciplinary authority failed to examine the witnesses. No doubt the burden was upon the disciplinary authority to adduce evidence and to prove the charges framed against the petitioner. Hut at the stage when the evidence was to be adduced the delinquent official came forward and made the statement admitting charges 2 and 3, in such a situation the disciplinary authority was not required to adduce evidence as it had left with no choice but to rely on the statement of the petitioner admitting charges 2 and 3. Therefore it is not possible to hold that the procedure followed was opposed to the procedure provided under the Rules. It is also not possible to hold that it violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore the contentions 2, 3 and 4 are rejected ( 13 ) THE fifth contention of the petitioner is that the appellate authority has not considered the appeal in accordance with law. The appellate authority has stated in the communication produced as Annexure-U that on perusal of the enquiry report and acceptance of the charges by the petitioner in the course of the enquiry which had been taken into account by the Managing director, and on taking into consideration the serious nature of the misconduct, the appellate authority held that in its opinion the matter did not require interference. No doubt the order of the appellate authority is not an elaborate one. No doubt the order of the appellate authority is not an elaborate one. But nevertheless it contains the necessary reasons and it discloses that there was application of the mind by the appellate authority. If the petitioner had not accepted charge Nos. 2 and 3 probably the approach of the appellate authority could have been different. But in the light of the fact that the statement of the petitioner as contained in the proceedings of the-enquiry officer dated 15-2-1085 amounted to acceptance of charges 2 and 3 which was relied upon by the appellate authority stating that the guilt was admitted by the petitioner, it is not possible to hold that the order of the appellate authority is not a speaking order. Hence this contention is also rejected. ( 14 ) THE last question that arises for consideration is, whether the penalty imposed is proportionate to the misconduct proved. The penalty imposed on the petitioner is withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. On calculation it is submitted by sri Ramchandra Rao, learned counsel for the respondent that it will would result in the loss of salary to the petitioner to the tune of rs. 21,000/ -. No doubt the petitioner is a very responsible officer; but that does not mean that the penalty imposed should be disproportionate. The claim made by him was for Rs. 1375. 64. Under these circumstances, i am of the view that the penalty imposed is disproportionate. On a calculation it is submitted on behalf of both the parties, that if two increments without cumulative effect are withheld it would result in the loss of salary to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 4220/ -. Therefore it appears to me that withholding of two increments without cumulative effect would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice and would make the petitioner to realise that in future he should not try to advance any such claim. Accordingly I am of the view that the penalty imposed requires to be modified by reducing it to withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. Accordingly I am of the view that the penalty imposed requires to be modified by reducing it to withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons stated above this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: the orders of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority are affirmed subject to the modification that the penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect imposed upon the petitioner shall be substituted by withholding of two increments without cumulative effect. --- *** --- .