N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, assailing the correctness of the impugned endorsement dated 28-2-2002 vide Annexure-A and the order dated 3-10-2000 vide Annexure-B, both issued and passed by the respondents, has presented this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a daily wage employee as a literate Assistant and his service was regularised as a Meter Reader. On 13-10-1995, the charge was framed against the petitioner stating that, he has declared himself as an autorickshaw driver and he has furnished the permit for autorickshaw and secured a loan of Rs. 27,000/ -. The show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide annexure-C, along with the copy of the charge memo, the list of witnesses and the list of documents. After the receipt of the said show-cause notice along with necessary documents and the copy of the charge memo, the petitioner has filed his reply vide Annexure-D. After the receipt of the reply filed by the petitioner and having regard to the magnitude of the charges levelled against the petitioner, an Enquiry officer has been appointed to conduct the enquiry and to submit his report. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry has submitted his detailed report on 24th May, 2000 vide Annexure-F. Immediately, after the receipt of the copy of the enquiry report, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 21-7-2000. To that show-cause notice, the petitioner has filed his detailed reply vide. Annexure-G and requested to reject the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer insofar as the so-called loan availed by him from Rajajinagar Co-operative Bank for purchase of an autorickshaw and to exonerate him from the charges. Thereafter, the matter has been placed before the Disciplinary authority. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and the reply filed by the petitioner has passed the order on 3-10-2000 vide Annexure-B. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority-1st respondent herein, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority-Board. Thereafter, the matter has been placed before the Disciplinary authority. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and the reply filed by the petitioner has passed the order on 3-10-2000 vide Annexure-B. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority-1st respondent herein, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority-Board. The board, after evaluation of the materials available on record and after careful perusal of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the reply filed by the petitioner has dismissed the appeal and communicated the same to the petitioner on 28-2-2002 vide Annexure-A. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent-Disciplinary authority vide Annexure-B and the endorsement issued by the Board vide Annexure-A, the petitioner felt necessitated the present this writ petition. ( 3 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, both the authorities have committed an error, much less irregularity in passing the order and issuing the endorsement vide annexures-A and B contrary to the mandatory provisions of Bangalore water Supply and Sewerage Act and Rules. The said order and endorsement have been passed and issued without considering the detailed reply filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-D and the objections filed to the enquiry report by taking a specific ground by placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court and this Court that he is not liable to be punished as he has not committed any error. The petitioner has given a detailed reply and clarified that, he has got one site in his name and the same has been sold before the issue of show-cause notice and he has not suppressed any facts. He has unequivocally stated before the authority that he has availed the loan of a sum of Rs. 27,000/- for purchasing an autorickshaw for the survival of his unemployed brother. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, when the petitioner has specifically pointed out the law laid down by this Court in his reply statement, objections to the report and also the memorandum of appeal, both the authorities have not at all considered the same and have given a specific finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Therefore, he submitted that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the endorsement issued by the Board are not sustainable and they are liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) PER contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents has filed detailed statement of objections, inter alia, contended and substantiated the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the endorsement issued by the Board, in view of the admission made by the petitioner regarding availment of loan and having a driving licence for driving the autorickshaw, as the same amounts to misconduct under Rule 3 of the karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 as adopted by the board. Further, he submitted that in view of the admission made by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has awarded the punishment by stopping two annual increments with cumulative effect which cannot be said to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner and the respondents have not violated any Rules of the karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules or the principles of natural justice. Further, he submitted that in another application filed by the petitioner for availing education loan, he has stated that he is an employee of the respondents. The conduct of the petitioner itself proves beyond all reasonable doubt that he has intentionally and deliberately suppressed the facts and availed the loan and therefore he submitted that both the authorities after evaluation of the materials available on record have rightly passed the order and issued the endorsement vide Annexures-A and B. No error or illegality have been committed by them. ( 5 ) AFTER having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents and after careful perusal of the materials available on record, the order passed by the Disciplinary authority vide Annexure-B and the endorsement issued by the Appellate authority vide Annexure-A, I do not find any error of law, much less irregularity committed by the both the authorities in passing and issuing the said order and the endorsement. The said order and endorsement are issued in strict compliance of the mandatory Rules as stated supra. The said order and endorsement are issued in strict compliance of the mandatory Rules as stated supra. ( 6 ) IT is significant to note that, in pursuance of the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner along with the Articles of charges, the petitioner has filed his detailed reply dated 28-10-1995 vide Annexure-D. In para 1 of his reply, the petitioner has unequivocally admitted that he has availed the loan. The said admission reads thus: ( 7 ) INSOFAR as the site Bearing No. 2061 situated in Kumaraswamy layout measuring 25' x 27' is concerned, it is stated by the petitioner in his reply that he has sold the said site on 10-1-1994 and as on the date of issuing the show-cause notice, he is not the owner of the said site. Thereafter, he has given a detailed statement explaining each charges to substantiate his statement and he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court and this Court. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry as envisaged under the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules and after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence has given a specific finding to the effect that, the charge levelled against the petitioner as regards taking the loan from the Co-operative Bank by falsely representing himself as an autorickshaw driver is proved and the same constitutes 'misconduct' within the meaning of Rule 3 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) rules, 1966. Further, the Enquiry Officer has stated that, the charge against the delinquent official that he has falsely declared himself as 'an autorickshaw driver and availed the loan of Rs. 27,000/- from the rajajinagar Co-operative Bank Limited is proved. Thereafter, the enquiry Officer has submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and the reply given by the petitioner vide Annexure-G, has passed the order as envisaged under Rule 3 of the karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and awarded the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appellate Authority Board has placed the matter in its meeting held on 6-2-2002 and it has been resolved unanimously in the said meeting to confirm the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, having regard to the materials available on record and as the reply filed by the petitioner is not satisfactory and accordingly rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and communicated the same to the petitioner vide Annexure-A. The said decision taken by the Board has not been assailed by the petitioner. But, what he has assailed in this writ petition is the communication sent by the respondents vide Annexure-A, in pursuance of the decision taken by the Board in its meeting as referred above. Therefore, I do not find any error or illegality as such committed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in view of the admission made by the petitioner in his reply. The petitioner being an employee of the respondents is well-acquainted with the Rules and Regulations and mandatory provisions of the Services Rules. But he himself has unequivocally admitted in his reply that, he has availed the loan. In view of the admission made by the petitioner, the order passed by the Disciplinary authority and the endorsement issued by the Appellate Authority are in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Bangalore Water supply and Sewerage Act and Services Rules, as stated supra. ( 8 ) THE specific submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, the Enquiry Officer has. s placed reliance on the Xerox copies of the documents and the same is not permissible as he has not obtained any certified copy from the Bank authorities and when this specific stand has been taken by the petitioner before the Enquiry officer, Disciplinary Authority and before the Appellate Authority, all of them have not considered and appreciated the same properly. In support of the said submission, he has placed heavy reliance on the law laid down by the Supreme Court and other High Courts on the above point. In support of the said submission, he has placed heavy reliance on the law laid down by the Supreme Court and other High Courts on the above point. But, it is significant to note that the Enquiry Officer has elaborately discussed and considered this aspect of the matter and has given a specific finding in his report at para No. 15, internal page No. 8, ink page No. 30 to the effect that: "the fact of having sent the Xerox copies by the Co-operative Bank is also affirmed in its letter dated 15-4-1999 in response to the notice given by him to give evidence". Therefore there is no substance or force in the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 9 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court and other High Courts were not considered has no substance because, as a matter of fact, the Enquiry Officer has elaborately discussed the same in para No. 17 of his report at internal page No. 8 and held that the reliance placed by the petitioner has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in view of the statement given by the delinquent official before the Investigating Officer and in the course of the statement given on 13-1-1995 in answer to the show-cause notice. Therefore, having regard to the magnitude and seriousness of the charges levelled against the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and by taking a lenient view, has passed the order imposing penalty and the same has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority which are just and reasonable. ( 10 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and taking into consideration the totality of the case in hand, I do not find any justification or good grounds to interfere with the order and the endorsement passed and issued by the respondents vide annexures-A and B. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. --- *** --- .