Judgment HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The petitioner has invoked the writ Jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of the charge-sheet served upon him on May 23,2003 and the order dated November 5, 2003, passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing major penalty of reduction of basic pay of the petitioner by three stages. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated May 27, 2004 and the order dated September 15, 2004 passed by the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority respectively affirming the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner, while working as Branch Manager in the Branch Office, Barnala of the respondent-Company during the year 1998-99, was served with a charge-sheet having authorized one outsider namely Sushil Kumar to issue Cover Notes from the Cover Note Book obtained by the petitioner for his personal use. By such process, the petitioner has violated the Agency Commission Structure and gave credit of business to Shri Pardeep Kumar, Agent, who had no role in procurement of the business. It was also all eged that the petitioner simultaneously used two Cover Note Books in violation of the manual of the issuance of the Cover Note Books and violated the Rules. 2. The petitioner submitted a reply dated July 21, 2003 to the charge-sheet served upon him. In the said reply, the petitioner admitted that he has authorized an outsider namely Sushil Kumar to issue a Cover Note from the Book issued to him. It was pointed out by the petitioner that, in fact, Sushil Kumar was earlier doing insurance business of New India Insurance Company Limited, but on his persuasion, he agreed to do the business of the respondent-Company. It was pointed out that Sushil Kumar has given the business to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000 annually and the claim ratio was less than 10%. It was pointed out that he had to authorize him to issue the Cover Notes from his book to compete with the other subsidiaries of the Company, It is also admitted by the petitioner that since Sushil Kumar was not having the Insurance Agency himself, he promoted the business procured by Sushil Kumar and given credit of business to another Agent Mr. Pardeep Kumar. 3. On the basis of the averments contained in the reply, the Competent Authority passed an order of reduction of basic pay of the petitioner by three stages. Pardeep Kumar. 3. On the basis of the averments contained in the reply, the Competent Authority passed an order of reduction of basic pay of the petitioner by three stages. The appeal and review against the said order have been dismissed, as mentioned above. 4. The sole argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that even if the petitioner has admitted the charges in the reply to the charge-sheet, still an enquiry was required to be conducted to verify the allegations. He has relied upon the Regulation 25 of the General Insurance (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). However, the Rules referred to by the petitioner in the writ petition are not the complete Rules. In fact, rule 25(4) of the Rules authorizes, the Competent Authority to appoint any public servant as Enquiring Authority on receipt of the written statement of the employee, or if no such statement is received within the time specified. The proviso contemplates that it may not be necessary to hold an inquiry in respect of the charges admitted by the employee in his written statement. The relevant clause of the said Rules is reproduced hereunder for ready reference. "25. Procedure for imposing Major Penalties: (1)xxxxxx (2)xxxxxx (3) xx xx xx (4) On receipt of the written statement of the employee, or if no such statement is received witnin the time specified, an inquiry may be held by the Competent Authority itself, or by any public servant appointed as an Inquiring Authority under provided that it may not be necessary to hold an inquiry in respect of the charges admitted by the employee in his written statement. The Competent-Authority shall, however, record its findings on each and such charge. XX XX XX" 5. Since, the petitioner has admitted the charges levelled against him in the charge-sheet, therefore, the order of punishment could be passed against the petitioner without holding any enquiry, as is contemplated in Rule 25(4) of the rule. 6. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Authorities, which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed.