JUDGMENT Mr. Permod Kohli. J.: - While working as an Additional Senior Sub Judge, Gulha, petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 17.2.1995 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. He was served with a memo containing articles of charges vide letter dated 31.5.1995 asking for his reply within 15 days. Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet vide his letter dated 29.6.1995 (Annexure P-4). It appears that on finding the reply of the petitioner unsatisfactory respondent no.3 was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Petitioner participated in the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report (Annexure P-5) dated 6.12.1996 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him. The disciplinary authority on consideration of the inquiry report served a show cause notice dated 29.3.1997 to the petitioner seeking his response as to why the report of the Inquiry Officer be not accepted and penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him. Petitioner submitted his response to the show cause notice dated 7.4.1997. He was finally dismissed from service vide order dated 1.9.1997 passed by the Governor of Haryana on the recommendations of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of dismissal and the inquiry report in this petition. 2. During the course of hearing Mr. N.D. Achint petitioner in person argued the matter. He has raised only two issues. (1) That no findings have been recorded by the Inquiry Officer on charges no.4 & 5. (2) That no second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the order of his dismissal. 3. As regards the first issue, we have perused the inquiry report. The Inquiry Officer has returned the findings on all the charges. The Inquiry Officer has discussed the entire evidence placed on record and returned his findings. Mr. Achint has not been able to point out from the inquiry report as to which of the finding of the Inquiry Officer is contrary to law or without evidence. 4. It is settled law that High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 does not sit as a Court of Appeal. The Court can only examine the mode and manner of exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction by the competent authority and observance of principles of natural justice. Petitioner fully participated in the inquiry. There is no grievance that he was not provided any opportunity during the course of inquiry. The Court can only examine the mode and manner of exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction by the competent authority and observance of principles of natural justice. Petitioner fully participated in the inquiry. There is no grievance that he was not provided any opportunity during the course of inquiry. No infirmity in the inquiry report has been pointed out notwithstanding various grounds raised in the petition. 5. As regards the second question, it has been argued that after the inquiry report was served upon the petitioner and his response was received, he was entitled to a second show cause notice. It is, however, admitted that show cause notice dated 7.4.1997 was issued to the petitioner on consideration of the inquiry report seeking his response. Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 relied upon by the petitioner provides for imposition of major penalty. Sub rule 6 deals with the procedure after the inquiry report is received by the disciplinary authority and reads as under:- “ (6) After the enquiry against a Govt. employee has been completed, and after the punishing authority has arrived at a provisional conclusion in regard to the penalty to be imposed, the Govt. employee shall, if the penalty to be imposed is major penalty, be supplied with a copy of the report of the enquiring authority and be called upon to show cause within reasonable time, not ordinarily exceeding one month, against the particular penalty proposed to be inflicted upon him. Any representation submitted by him in this behalf shall be taken into consideration before final orders are passed: Provided that if the punishing authority disagrees with any part or whole of the findings of the enquiring authority, the point or points of such disagreement, together with a brief statement of the ground thereof, shall also be supplied to the Govt. employee.” 6. This rule only requires issuance of one show cause notice on consideration of the inquiry report and tentative opinion proposing the penalty. A show cause notice has been issued under this provision. No other show cause notice is envisaged under any rule nor any such rule has been brought to our notice by the petitioner. He has further referred to Appendix ‘F’, which is a part of the aforesaid Rules. From Appendix ‘F’ also it appears that this relates to show cause notice on consideration of the inquiry report. No other show cause notice is envisaged under any rule nor any such rule has been brought to our notice by the petitioner. He has further referred to Appendix ‘F’, which is a part of the aforesaid Rules. From Appendix ‘F’ also it appears that this relates to show cause notice on consideration of the inquiry report. In absence of any provision requiring second show cause notice, the contention of the petitioner is without any basis and deserves rejection. No other point has been raised during the course of arguments. 7. We do not find any ground to interfere in the order of dismissal. No merit, petition dismissed. --------------