JUDGMENT 1. - Vide letter dated 2.3.12.1995, petitioner was served with a memorandum of allegations and charges under rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, (for short 'the C.C.A. Rules'). The petitioner denied the charges, and, submitted reply. Vide order dated 16.12.1996, the petitioner was punished with stoppage of two grade increments. Feeling aggrieved by the issuance of the memorandum of allegations and charges under rule 17 of C.C.A. Rules, and, imposition of penalty by the order dated 16.12.1996. the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 2. In reply, respondents have contested this petition, and, have contended that the petitioner was rightly served with the memorandum of allegations and charges, and, has been rightly punished after due process of 4aw and rules. 3. I have heard the arguments of both the sides.In the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Udai Singh, (1997) 5 SCC 129 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot embark upon appreciation of evidence and reach its own conclusion on the sufficiency of evidence or on the correctness of the conclusion which is based on the same evidence. It is the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority to consider the evidence on record and to record findings whether the charge has been proved or not. It is equally settled law that technical rules of evidence gave no application and the authority is to consider the material on record. 4. The scope of disciplinary enquiry is entirely different from that of criminal trial in which the charge is required to be proved beyond doubt. However, in the case of disciplinary enquiry, the technical rules of evidence have no application. The doctrine of "proof beyond doubt" also has no application. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record would be necessary to reach a conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct. In judicial review, the court has no power to trench on the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion. Judicial review is not an appeal for a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives a fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct. Judicial review is not an appeal for a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives a fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct. When the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, the court is devoid of power to re-appreciate the evidence and would come to its own conclusion. 5. In view of the above principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it would be difficult to reach the conclusion that the finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence at all. in my opinion, the conclusion of the disciplinary authority seems to be well justified, and, it does not warrant any interference in the order dated 16.12.1996. 6. in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Hand Kishore Shukla and another AIR 1996 SC 1561 , it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that it is settled law that the Court is not a Court of appeal to go into the question of imposition of the punishment. It is for the disciplinary authority to consider what would be the nature of the punishment to be imposed on a Government servant based upon the proved misconduct. Having regard to the principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases, I do not feel inclined to interfere with the order dated 16.12.1996 (Annexure 4). 7. The memorandum of allegations and charges was served on the petitioner, and, he has already submitted reply thereto. The disciplinary authority has finally passed the order dated 16.12.1996, whereby, the petitioner has been punished with the stoppage of two grade increments. Now, when the disciplinary proceedings have come to an end, the question of quashing the memorandum of allegations and charges, does not arise.In the result, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is, therefore, dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******