N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein, questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 31st October, 1992 bearing No. DMA Enquiry (3) OR. 270 of 1989-90 on the file of the third respondent vide Annexure-C and the order dated 21st February, 2000 bearing No. Sa. Aa. Ee. 8 KMR. 2000, bangalore on the file of the fourth respondent vide Annexure-F, being arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to law, has presented the instant writ petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has joined the services of the first respondent-Town municipal Council, Sirsi (hereinafter called the TMC'), Navalgund as 'clerk' in 1966 and continued to work in the said post. Thereafter, during the period from 1978 to 1983, he has worked as 'clerk' at Dandeli and during the year 1984, he was posted to work in the first respondent-Office where he worked till 1987. When the petitioner was discharging his duty with sincerity and honesty, it is the case of the department that, the petitioner appears to have committed some irregularity pertaining to non-remittance of the amount of tax collected from citizens of the said TMC. Further it is the case of the Department that, the petitioner was absent unauthorisedly for sometime. However, it is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner, due to inadvertence and pressure of work, was not able to remit the amount in time and further, due to his ill-health, he was confined to bed and therefore, he could not continue his work. Be that as it may. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was shocked and surprised to receive a charge memo dated 30th November, 1988 calling upon him to have his say in the matter. In response to the same, the petitioner has given a detailed representation and without considering his defence, an enquiry has been initiated and the second respondent has been appointed as the Enquiry officer. The petitioner was issued with the charge memo along with imputation of charges vide Annexures-A and B respectively. After receipt of the notice, the petitioner could not appear before the Enquiry officer, due to the fact that he was bed-ridden as he was suffering from tb during the said period and therefore he could not take any defence effectively to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer. After receipt of the notice, the petitioner could not appear before the Enquiry officer, due to the fact that he was bed-ridden as he was suffering from tb during the said period and therefore he could not take any defence effectively to defend himself before the Enquiry Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that, the Enquiry Officer, without conducting the enquiry as envisaged under the mandatory provisions of the Municipal Council act, Municipal Council Rules and its regulations has submitted the report holding that, both the charges are proved against the petitioner. The first charge being that, the petitioner is alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 4,592. 95 ps. of the TMC and the second charge being that, he has remained absent unauthorisedly from 14th october, 1987. The Enquiry Officer has submitted the report holding that, both the charges levelled against the petitioner are grievous in nature and the same are proved. The petitioner has failed to substantiate his defence. After receipt of the copy of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer along with Annexures, the disciplinary Authority has issued the notice to have the say of the petitioner in the matter. In spite of service of notice dated 30th november, 1988, the petitioner has not filed any reply nor has filed any written arguments to substantiate his case. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer has passed the order, dismissing the petitioner from service. Being aggrieved by the report submitted by the enquiry Officer and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, petitioner has filed an appeal on the file of the third respondent-Director of Municipal Administration (hereinafter called the "appellate authority" ). The Appellate Authority after re-assessing the oral and documentary evidence and the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, has given a specific finding holding that, the petitioner himself has appeared and given a statement in writing that, he has misappropriated the amount and the said misappropriated amount may be adjusted in the pensionary benefits. The Appellate Authority has also observed that, the petitioner, after receiving the notice to pay the said misappropriated amount to the TMC, in view of the admission made by him, has remained absent unauthorisedly from 14th October, 1987 onwards. The Appellate Authority has also observed that, the petitioner, after receiving the notice to pay the said misappropriated amount to the TMC, in view of the admission made by him, has remained absent unauthorisedly from 14th October, 1987 onwards. Therefore, in spite of giving sufficient opportunity before the Enquiry officer and before the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner has failed to substantiate his stand. The Appellate Authority, having regard to the material available on records, both oral and documentary evidence and after critical evaluation of the entire case, has dismissed the appeal, confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by both the authorities referred above, the petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition. ( 4 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, the impugned order passed by both the authorities are liable to vitiate for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the municipal Council Act and Rules inasmuch as the Enquiry Officer has not conducted the enquiry in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Rules. He submitted that, the Disciplinary Authority, without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case, only on the basis of the admission given by him, has passed the impugned order of dismissal from service purely on the basis of the unilateral report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. Thus, both the authorities have committed an error in taking a decision unilaterally accepting the report in toto. He submitted that, the Disciplinary authority ought to have taken a lenient view and considered his case sympathetically having regard to the fact that he was seriously ill and was suffering from TB and that, therefore, could not attend to duty and the said absence ought not to have been treated as unauthorised absence. With regard to the first charge of misappropriation of the amount of the TMC shown against the petitioner, he submitted that, the petitioner is not the only person to be held responsible for that. The admission alleged to have been made by the petitioner is due to pressure and fear and therefore, that should not be a ground for termination of his services. The admission alleged to have been made by the petitioner is due to pressure and fear and therefore, that should not be a ground for termination of his services. To substantiate his case, he placed heavy reliance on the well-settled law laid down by the Supreme Court and submitted that, the admission made by a party should not be a ground for passing the dismissal order. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned order passed by both the authorities are liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) PER contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2, 3 and 4, inter alia, contended and substantiated the impugned orders passed by both the authorities and submitted that, they are in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the municipalities Act and Rules read with its regulations and no error or illegality as such has been committed by the respondents in passing the impugned orders. To substantiate his submission, he has taken me through the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and pointed out that, an amount of Rs. 4,592. 95 ps. has been misappropriated by the petitioner in respect of eight items mentioned in Annexure-11 to annexure-A, dated 30th November, 1988 and moreover, the petitioner himself has appeared and given evidence in writing admitting that, the said misappropriated amount may be adjusted towards his pensionary benefits. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that, thereafter, in order to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to pay the said amount in view of the admission made by him, another notice was issued to the petitioner to pay the said misappropriated sum. After receipt of the said notice, the petitioner has remained absent unauthorisedly in clear violation of Rule 106-A of the Karnataka Civil services Rules, 1958 ('kcsrs' for short ). In spite of giving sufficient opportunity, both before the Enquiry Officer and also before the disciplinary Authority, the petitioner has failed to produce any material nor examined any independent witness nor has produced any documentary evidence to show that, he has not committed any error with regard to misappropriation of amount and his unauthorised absence. As per the mandatory provisions of the KCSRs, the Competent authority has passed a well-considered order and no error or illegality as such has been committed nor the petitioner has made out any good grounds to interfere in the said order. As per the mandatory provisions of the KCSRs, the Competent authority has passed a well-considered order and no error or illegality as such has been committed nor the petitioner has made out any good grounds to interfere in the said order. ( 6 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and the rival contentions advanced by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents, the only question that arise for consideration in the instant writ petition is as to: whether the impugned orders passed by both the authorities are sustainable in law? after careful evaluation of the material available on record threadbare, after careful perusal of the report submitted by the Enquiry officer, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it emerges on the face of the orders and the material available on record that, the authorities have not committed any error or illegality in passing the impugned orders. The competent Authority has conducted the enquiry as envisaged under the mandatory provisions of the TMC Act and Rules read with Regulations and the KCSRs. The Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary authority have considered the admission made by the petitioner in wilting, requesting the authorities to adjust the misappropriated amount in his pensionary/retirement benefits and his failure to give proper explanation regarding his unauthorised absence from 14th october, 1987 and thereafter have given a specific finding. The appellate Authority also, after reassessing the oral and documentary evidence and the specific finding given by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report and the Disciplinary Authority, after appreciation of the same, and considering the statement made by the petitioner in writing, has passed the impugned order which is in accordance with law. Hence, i do not find any error or illegality as such committed by the Competent authorities. Therefore, in view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority after reassessing the oral and documentary evidence, interference by this Court is uncalled for also in view of the settled law laid down by the supreme Court and this Court in host of judgments nor I find any good grounds to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the Competent authorities. ( 7 ) SO far as the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner that, only on the basis of the admission made by the petitioner, the authority is not justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service in view of the law laid down by the Supreme court and this Court, I am of the view that, there is no dispute or quarrel regarding the well-settled principles of law laid down by the apex Court and this Court in series of matters. But, in the instant case, having regard to the magnitude of the charges, both admitted and proved against the petitioner by both the authorities, it can be seen that, the authorities have passed the impugned orders after critical evaluation of the material available on record and in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Municipalities Act, Rules read with regulations and KCSRs. The charges alleged and proved against the petitioner are two and that, both are serious in nature. One regarding misappropriation of the fund of the TMC and the other is unauthorised absence. So far as the first charge is concerned, the petitioner himself has given written statement admitting the misappropriated amount and requesting the authorities to adjust the same towards the pensionary benefits; and so far as the second charge is concerned, the petitioner has failed to give proper explanation and has also failed to produce an iota of document to substantiate by way of giving written submission. Except making oral submission that he is suffering from TB, the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate his case that, he was suffering from TB by producing the Certificate from the Doctor under whom he has taken treatment, or the name of the Hospital, if he was admitted, etc. Therefore, in the absence of all these documents and substantive material in his favour, both the authorities have rightly proceeded and passed the impugned orders. ( 8 ) THEREFORE, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, I do not find any justification to interfere in the well-considered order passed by both the authorities. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed. --- *** --- .