N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 17th January 2001 bearing No. SEE/mng/spa/de/8258-63 passed by third respondent - Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure G and order dated 31st August 2001 bearing No. . . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .-Appeal/10521- 23 passed by second respondent - Appellate Authority vide Annexure J, has presented the instant writ petition on the ground that, the said orders are totally unjust and arbitrary, apart from being violative of Rules of natural justice. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondents to exonerate the petitioner of all the charges and further direct the respondents to extend all monetary benefits by treating the entire period of suspension being undergone by the petitioner as on duty. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner is a Diploma holder in Electrical Engineering. He joined the service in the then erstwhile Karnataka Electricity Board in the year 1969 as temporary labourer. He was absorbed as Meter Reader with effect from 21st October 1970 on permanent basis. He was promoted as Junior Engineer in the year 1987. Even today he is working in the same cadre. Presently, petitioner is working as Junior Engineer at 110 KV Station Kulshekar, Mangalore. Prior to his transfer to the present place of working, he was working at Mannaguddi Section Office. In the said Office, he worked as Junior Engineer from the year 1996 to 15th December 2000 and was discharging his duties. It is his case that, he has excellent and unblemished service record and at no point of time, he has given room for any sort of complaints from the public or shown disrespect to his superiors. When things stood thus, petitioner was transferred by order dated 9th December 1999 but he evaded to receive the said transfer order. Further, he immediately went on leave from 16th December 1999 to 23rd January 2000 only to just defeat the transfer order. It is the further case of petitioner that, the said fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner only on 12th January 2000. Thereafter, petitioner has submitted his explanation for non compliance of the transfer order. Further, he immediately went on leave from 16th December 1999 to 23rd January 2000 only to just defeat the transfer order. It is the further case of petitioner that, the said fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner only on 12th January 2000. Thereafter, petitioner has submitted his explanation for non compliance of the transfer order. He has stated that, when he came to know of the transfer order, at that time, he was under medical treatment and therefore, as soon as he came to know of the same, immediately, he has complied with the transfer order and reported to duty on 24th January 2000 on the forenoon at Maroli. In view of the said conduct in not reporting to the duty immediately and for disobedience of the orders of transfer made by his superior, he was kept under suspension. Thereafter, petitioner has replied to the said suspension order and requested that, the suspension order may be revoked. Accordingly, the suspension has been revoked and petitioner has been reinstated after accepting his explanation/reply. Thereafter, the charge memo has been issued to the petitioner on 21st March 2000 vide Annexure A by the competent authority. After receipt of the said charge memo, petitioner has filed a detailed reply vide Annexure B, explaining that, he has not committed any misbehavior or shown disrespect or misused his position as jurisdictional Officer where he was in charge on 6th April 2000. After receipt of the reply, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to go into the matter. The Enquiry Officer, after issuing notice to the petitioner and after affording opportunity and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, including the explanation submitted by the petitioner in writing, has submitted a report dated 11th October 2000, holding that, the charges 1 to 5 levelled against the petitioner are proved except a part of charge No. 1 relating to the allegation of non -replacement of defective meters with correct meters. After receipt of the report from the enquiry officer, the competent authority has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner along with a copy of the enquiry report on 2nd November 2000 vide Annexure E. Upon receipt of the said show cause notice, petitioner has submitted his detailed reply vide Annexure F dated 5th December 2000. After receipt of the report from the enquiry officer, the competent authority has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner along with a copy of the enquiry report on 2nd November 2000 vide Annexure E. Upon receipt of the said show cause notice, petitioner has submitted his detailed reply vide Annexure F dated 5th December 2000. The third respondent, being the Disciplinary Authority, has conducted the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the said authority, after affording sufficient opportunity and after considering the relevant material available on file, has passed the well considered order dated 17th January 2001, ordering to withhold two increments of the petitioner falling due next with cumulative effect and further held that, the suspension period shall be treated as leave at his credit. Assailing the correctness of the order dated 17th January 2001 passed by third respondent - Disciplinary Authority, petitioner herein has filed an appeal on the file of the second respondent - Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, and after conducting enquiry in strict compliance of the relevant regulations of the respondent - Board (now 'company'), has partly allowed the appeal by its order dated 31st August 2001 vide Annexure J, modifying that, the ensuing two annual increments of the petitioner may be withheld without cumulative effect and further held that, in all other respects, the remaining order passed by the Disciplinary Authority would hold good and remain unaltered. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority vide Annexures G and J respectively, as referred above, petitioner has presented the instant writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra. ( 3 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the charge sheet issued by the Disciplinary Authority suffers from irrelevant particulars with regard to each one of the charges. The said allegations levelled against the petitioner are totally vague in as much as the charges levelled against the petitioner must contain all particulars and that, the charges should be specific and precise. Due to lack of all these materials and consequently the enquiry held pursuant to the defective charge sheet is unsustainable. The said allegations levelled against the petitioner are totally vague in as much as the charges levelled against the petitioner must contain all particulars and that, the charges should be specific and precise. Due to lack of all these materials and consequently the enquiry held pursuant to the defective charge sheet is unsustainable. Further, it is the contention of petitioner that, the allegations levelled against the petitioner are totally false and baseless for the reason that, in spite of filing a detailed reply to the charge sheet stating specifically that, he has not committed any misconduct, the said aspect has not been considered properly by the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer also has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter while recording the finding that, the charges levelled against the petitioner are established. Therefore, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is liable to be quashed in as much as the Disciplinary Authority has not appreciated the case of petitioner put forth by him and without there being any material, petitioner has been held guilty of the charges levelled against him. Further, it is the case of petitioner that, the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer suffers from perversity and accepting the said report of the Enquiry Officer, both the authorities have committed grave error in passing the impugned orders without conducting proper enquiry and without appreciating the relevant material available on file. Therefore, the impugned order passed by both the authorities are liable to vitiate. ( 4 ) PER contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents, inter alia, contended and submitted that, the impugned orders passed by the competent authority are after conducting thorough enquiry, after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter and also in strict compliance of the principles of natural justice. Taking into consideration the totality of the case and the conduct of the petitioner, petitioner being fully aware of the order relieving him of his duties, has deliberately evaded the service of the order on him and instead resorted to acts subversive of discipline by exerting pressure and threat for withdrawal of the redeployment order, intentionally and deliberately, just to defeat the transfer order. Further, he submitted that, the allegations of mala fides and ulterior motives levelled by petitioner are absolutely baseless apart from being vague. Further, he submitted that, the allegations of mala fides and ulterior motives levelled by petitioner are absolutely baseless apart from being vague. That too, petitioner has not impleaded the concerned Officers against whom such allegations are made in the writ petition. Further it is specifically pointed out that, petitioner was under suspension from 20th January 2000 till 10th March 2000. Having regard to the representation submitted by petitioner dated 7th March 2000 wherein, petitioner has also given an undertaking to the effect that, he is ready and willing to serve anywhere in Mangalore Division, considering his request, he has been reinstated into service. ( 5 ) FURTHER, learned Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that, after careful perusal of the enquiry report, it can be seen that, the said enquiry has been proceeded on the basis of the relevant material available on file and after giving full and fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to defend himself and the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer after considering all the material available on record, has recorded the finding holding that, petitioner is guilty of misconduct. In view of concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the authorities, after considering the relevant material available on file, oral and documentary, and after appreciating the same, which are purely questions of fact, there is no error apparent on the face of record pertaining to enquiry. The finding of guilt arrived at by the authorities are neither perverse nor based on irrelevant or ulterior consideration. Therefore petitioner cannot invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction as envisaged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and that, the penalty imposed to withhold two increments without cumulative effect clearly establishes that, fair opportunity had intact, been given to the petitioner and also a lenient view was taken in his favour. Therefore, the grounds urged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition do not have any foundation either in law or in the facts of the present case. Therefore, learned Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as misconceived and as being devoid of merits. ( 6 ) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondents. Therefore, learned Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as misconceived and as being devoid of merits. ( 6 ) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondents. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing learned Counsel appearing for petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for respondents, after considering the rival submission made by them and after perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority along with the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, it is manifest on the face of the reading of the said orders that, there is no error or material irregularity as such committed by the authorities nor the finding of guilt on the part of petitioner arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is perverse or on irrelevant considerations. The Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority after thorough evaluation of the entire relevant material available on record threadbare and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, have recorded concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner holding that, petitioner has failed to establish his case except stating in his representation that, he has not committed any misconduct. Petitioner has not produced any authenticated document in support of his case and has failed to examine any independent witness regarding the aspect that, the charges levelled against the petitioner are false and baseless. In view of concurrent finding of fact recorded by all the three authorities, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, interference by this Court is not justifiable nor I find any specific case made out by petitioner that, the impugned orders are proceeded with mala fide intention and contrary to the relevant material available on file. Therefore, interference by this Court in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the authorities is not justifiable in view of the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in host of judgments. Therefore, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Therefore, interference by this Court in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the authorities is not justifiable in view of the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in host of judgments. Therefore, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. ( 8 ) YET another reason as to why the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed is, on account of fair amount of reasonableness and fairness shown by the statutory authorities in dealing with the case of the petitioner and having regard to full compliance of principles of natural justice. Moreover, the decision taken by the competent authority does not in any way violate the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M. P. Gangadharan and Anr. v. State of Kerala reported in (2006) 6 SCC 166, wherein the Apex Court has observed as follows: 34. The constitutional requirement for judging the question of reasonableness and fairness on the part of the statutory authority must be considered having regard to the factual matrix obtaining in each case. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It must be considered keeping in view the doctrine of flexibility. Before an action is stuck down, the Court must be satisfied that a case has been made out for exercise of power of judicial review. We are not unmindful of the development of the law that from the doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness, the court is leaning towards the doctrine of proportionality But in a case of this nature, the doctrine of proportionality must also be applied having regard to the purport and object for which the Act was enacted. If the ratio of the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court, as above, is applied to the case on hand, I do not find any unreasonableness or unjust being caused to the petitioner regarding the punishment imposed on the petitioner. The said punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect is fair, just and reasonable in the eye of law. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, and taking into consideration the totality of the case on hand, I do not find any good grounds to interfere in the well considered orders passed by both the authorities. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, and taking into consideration the totality of the case on hand, I do not find any good grounds to interfere in the well considered orders passed by both the authorities. Hence, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.