SHYLCNDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) WRIT petition by a former employee of the respondent-Bangalore Mahanagara Palike who had been proceeded against in a departmental inquiry on allegation of certain misconduct. ( 2 ) THE nature of allegation which was proved in the departmental inquiry was that the petitioner was involved in misappropriation of amount of Rs. 8,94,835,40/- which was an amount which had been collected from the tax payers but had not been properly accounted for or credited to the account of the employer-Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. ( 3 ) THE order passed by the disciplinary authority only directed the amount to be recovered from the petitioner but also imposed punishment of reducing the pay of the petitioner at the time of retirement to the minimum of time scale in the particular cadre i. e. , as in the cadre of First Division Clerk. ( 4 ) THE order passed by the Commissioner purporting to be in exercise of his powers under Section 69 and 90 of the Kamataka municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act' ) also, inter alia, indicated that as the petitioner had already remitted a sum of Rs. 1,69,000/- in respect of the amount of Rs. 8,94,835,40/- not remitted to the account of the Palike, the balance amount of rs. 7,25,835,40/- alone can be recovered and for the purpose of recovering of the amount, the retirement benefits can be adjusted. and if any further amount remains outstanding even after such adjustment, the amount can be recovered by forfeiting the properties in the name of the petitioner and by bringing such property for auction sale as though it is a measure for recovery of any revenue due to the Palike. ( 5 ) IT is such order which is challenged in this writ petition even bypassing the appellate remedy under the Act itself. ( 6 ) SUBMISSION of Sri Chandrachooda, Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the procedure followed was one not according a proper opportunity to the petitioner and can be construed as in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore this court can examine the matter even if the petitioner has not availed of the appellate remedy. ( 7 ) WHAT is pointed out in this regard is that no proper opportunity had been given to the petitioner to cross examine certain witnesses by tendering them for cross examination. ( 7 ) WHAT is pointed out in this regard is that no proper opportunity had been given to the petitioner to cross examine certain witnesses by tendering them for cross examination. ( 8 ) THIS apart, a formidable ground of attack raised on the order is that the disciplinary authority, namely the Commissioner does not have the power to order forfeiture of any of the properties movable or immovable belonging to an employee of the Bangalore mahanagara Palike as a measure of imposing any punishment in a disciplinary proceeding. It is for such reason, the order is sought to be quashed. ( 9 ) RESPONDENT had been put on notice and is represented by their Counsel Sri K. N. Puttegowda. ( 10 ) STATEMENT of objections have been filed and the impugned order is sought to be justified, inter alia, contending that proper opportunity had been given to the petitioner; that the petitioner had participated in the inquiry proceedings and cannot now turn around and submit that no opportunity had been given etc. ,. ( 11 ) IT is also submitted by Sri Puttegowda, Learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner having bypassed the appellate remedy available under the Act itself, should not be permitted to approach this court by directly filing a writ petition and remiss on the part of the petitioner in not availing of the appellate remedy cannot be converted to her advantage to invoke jurisdiction of this court to act as an appellate authority etc. ,. ( 12 ) IN respect of the grievance of the petitioner that the commissioner has no competence to order any forfeiture of the properties of the petitioner while acting as a disciplinary authority in a domestic inquiry. Sri Puttegowda, Learned Counsel for the respondent clarifies that the Commissioner has not under the impugned order forfeited any of the property but has only indicated that the balance amount payable by the petitioner can be realized by way of revenue recovery treating the amount as arrears of revenue and for which purpose, the property can also be brought for sale etc. ,. ,. ( 13 ) IN so far as the attack on the order on procedural aspects is concerned, I am not very satisfied this is a fit matter for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227" of the Constitution of India, particularly as the petitioner has bypassed the appellate remedy. Moreover, the petitioner's conduct being such that he has virtually admitted the guilt and violations and having remitted part of the amount, balance amount definitely has to be paid. ( 14 ) THE punishment imposed, which is one of reducing the pay scale to the lower limit in the grade in which she was working, in my opinion, is not in any way disproportionate. But, so far as the order indicating the forfeiture of the properties of the petitioner is concerned, it definitely calls for clarification and it is hereby clarified, it definitely calls for clarification and it is hereby clarified that the order can only be understood as one indicating the manner of recovery of balance amount of Rs. 7,25,835. 40/- and not one which not only forfeits the properties of the petitioner but also provides for recovery of the balance amount thereafter. Submission of Sri Puttegowda, Learned Counsel for the respondent is also to the same effect. ( 15 ) THE order in so far as it relates to a reference to the forfeiture of the properties is concerned, it is quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari and it is clarified it can only be understood as one indicating the manner of recovery of the balance amount if it is not paid by the petitioner and not an order for forfeiture of the properties of the petitioner. ( 16 ) IT is open to the respondent to recover the amount as though the balance amount is an arrears of land revenue and resort to the procedure as permitted in law of such recovery and nothing beyond. Rule issued and made absolute only to the extent indicated above. ( 17 ) WRIT petition is disposed of accordingly.