By Court.- This appeal was proceeded departmentally for the following charges:- (I) Appellant took the benefit of annual increment without passing the Hindi Noting & Drafting Examination since 9.2.1975, whereas he passed the examination on 1.2.1980 and was eligible for the same thereafter. (II) Without being eligible, he took the benefit of first time bound promotion w.e.f. 1.4.1981. (III) He was directed to pay the amount taken by him in excess wrongly but he failed to do so. (IV) He took the house rent allowances, while occupying Government quarter. (V) He took the salary in excess by showing wrong pay scale of 4th pay revision w.e.f. 1.4.1981. The petitioner was given opportunity to explain the charges and after adopting due procedure the disciplinary authority found the said charges proved against him and awarded the following punishment:- A. The amount, which was paid to the petitioner in excess to which he was entitled, be recovered from his salary. B. The amount which was received by the petitioner towards the house rent allowances which was illegally paid to him be recovered and adjusted from his salary. C. Stoppage of two annual increments and entry to that effect in the service book with cumulative effect. 2. The appellant challenged the said order of punishment in C.W.J.C. No. 9828 of 2000(P). The said writ petition, after hearing both the parties, was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 5.5.2004. 3. Learned Single Judge was convinced with the finding of the disciplinary authority except the part of the punishment of recovery of the payment of excess amount paid to him on the basis of his 2nd time bound promotion. Learned Single Judge held that 2nd time bound promotion was not granted on the petitioner's misrepresentation. He modified the order of punishment and set aside that part of the punishment of recovery of the excess amount paid on account of 2nd time bound promotion. 4. In this appeal, the petitioner has taken the ground that in fact he was not in occupation of any Government quarter. He was residing in a vacant cattle-shed and the contrary findings by the disciplinary authority is wholly erroneous and unsustainable. 5. 4. In this appeal, the petitioner has taken the ground that in fact he was not in occupation of any Government quarter. He was residing in a vacant cattle-shed and the contrary findings by the disciplinary authority is wholly erroneous and unsustainable. 5. It has been submitted that findings recorded by learned disciplinary authority are not sound and legal but learned Single Judge, has relied on the said findings and has passed the impugned order giving only a partial relief by quashing the part of punishment of recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner on the basis of his 2nd time bound promotion. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record as also the ground taken in this appeal. 7. On going through the order of the learned Single Judge and considering the same in the light of the facts and materials on record, we do not find any infirmity and illegality in the order. The ground which has been taken before this Court is based on the tangled facts. The disciplinary authority has decided the factual issues taking into consideration the facts and material appearing on record. It has not been alleged that the said authority has no jurisdiction or competence to take the said decision. Learned Single Judge has considered the said points and has passed the impugned order. We do not find any just reason to take contrary view and upset the findings of learned Single Judge. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any ground made out in this appeal for interference with the order of learned Single Judge. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.