JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 12.06.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No.7669 of 2012, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition but further clarified that the order of imposition of condition shall cease to operate with effect from 01.04.2013 onwards. 2. Short facts of the case appears to be that the appellant - petitioner joined the service of the respondent department as a Teacher in the year 1979 and lastly he was working as a Professor and incharge Principal at R.G.T. College, Porbandar. In the year 2007, he preferred Special Civil Application No.18737 of 2007 seeking pay-scale of the post of Principal on the ground that he has been holding post of Principal for a period of more than eight years. The said petition was disposed of by order dated 15.02.2008. However, as the petitioner was not satisfied with the said order, he preferred Letters Patent Appeal No.256 of 2008 which came to be dismissed by order dated 15.09.2008. Against the said order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal, certain observations were made by the Division Bench of this Court that the petitioner twisted the facts, played smart and tried to mislead the Court. It was also observed that such conduct on the part of the petitioner could be said as misconduct attracting the power of the authority to take disciplinary action after holding inquiry. The petitioner carried the matter before the Apex Court by preferring Special Leave Petition which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.11.2008 but the observations made by the Division Bench in the above referred Letters Patent Appeal were neither interfered with nor expunged. 3. It appears that thereafter, in view of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.256 of 2008, the charge-sheet was issued. The petitioner submitted the reply. The inquiry was held and in the inquiry it was found that no material was produced by the petitioner to come out from the accusation which were imposed upon the petitioner and, thereafter the charges were framed. The disciplinary authority based on the said inquiry report, imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment without future effect from 31.03.2013. Under the circumstances, the petitioner preferred the petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No.7669 of 2012. The disciplinary authority based on the said inquiry report, imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment without future effect from 31.03.2013. Under the circumstances, the petitioner preferred the petition before this Court being Special Civil Application No.7669 of 2012. The learned Single Judge recorded that the petitioner has not challenged the inquiry proceedings on any other ground except that the order of penalty imposed by the respondent authority. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition but only clarified that order shall cease to operate with effect from 01.04.2013. Under the circumstances, the present appeal is before the Division Bench of this Court. 4. We have heard Mr.G.R.Thakar, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr.Rutvij Oja, learned AGP for the respondent No.1 - State and Ms.Tejal Shah learned advocate for Ms. Roopal Patel, learned advocate for the respondent No.2. 5. It is undisputed position that the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.09.2008 in Letters Patent Appeal No.256 of 2008 remained on record and they were not expunged or interfered with by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner against the said order and the observations made in the said Letters Patent Appeal No.256 of 2008. Based on the said observations, the charges were framed and the opportunity was given to the petitioner and thereafter, the inquiry was held. Relevant aspect is that, it was not the defence of the petitioner that observations made by the High Court could not stand on factual aspect and it was rather the defence of the petitioner that he was entitled for the pay-scale as per the rule and as per the Government circular. The Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner could not produce any material which may disprove the accusation made against him based on the observations made by the High Court in the above Letters Patent Appeal. Under the circumstances, punishment has been imposed. 6. It is hardly required to be stated that the scope of judicial scrutiny in the petition against the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings is limited to the extent of interference on the ground of principal of natural justice or on the ground that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the charge or that the order was without authority or jurisdiction. In the aforesaid broad three parameters, for exercising of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, over the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings. As recorded by us earlier, the petitioner did not raise the defence that the observations made by the High Court were on factually incorrect premise but all the while the petitioner raised the defence and the said aspect has been reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court in the present appeal that the petitioner was entitled for pay-scale as per the rule. In our view, such was not the accusation nor could be the scope of inquiry. Learned advocate Mr.Thakar for the appellant has not been able to show any defence raised to contend that the observations made by the High Court were wrong on factual premise or were actually wrong or erroneous. It is hardly required to be stated that if the High Court on judicial side made certain observations about the conduct of any litigant which was petitioner in the present case and based on the same, the departmental proceedings were initiated, the defence may be available to the person concerned to show that the observations made were factually incorrect and burden would be upon the employee concerned to disprove on factual premise the accusation or the observations made by the High Court. The Inquiry Officer found that such burden was not discharged. It can rather be said that such was not even the defence raised. 7. Under the circumstances, we find that no defence was raised, nor any complaint is made for breach of principles of natural justice. It cannot be said that it was a case of no evidence. The sufficiency of the material cannot be gone into in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the penalty imposed in the disciplinary proceedings. In any case, the material was there before the Inquiry Officer about the prima facie observations made by the High Court. When no defence was raised to disprove the observations made by showing the facts in the record of the Special Civil Application or Letters Patent Appeal and when finding is recorded by the Inquiry Officer and ultimately relied upon by the disciplinary authority, it could not be said that the decision was arbitrary. 8. When no defence was raised to disprove the observations made by showing the facts in the record of the Special Civil Application or Letters Patent Appeal and when finding is recorded by the Inquiry Officer and ultimately relied upon by the disciplinary authority, it could not be said that the decision was arbitrary. 8. Learned advocate Mr.Thakar for the appellant relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Arindam Chattopadhyay and others v. State of West Bengal and others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 152 for contending that if the parity in pay-scale was required to be maintained and as was not maintained, the petitioner was justified in referring the Special Civil Application and was entitled for pay-scale which has not been considered by the Inquiry Officer. In our view, the said contention is misconceived, inasmuch as such was not the subject matter in the inquiry nor would be gone into by the Inquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority. The allegations in the petition was the alleged misconduct in the proceedings before the High Court that too in view of the observations made by the High Court, the merits of the case in Special Civil Application No.18737 of 2007 was not to be considered on the ground that whether the petitioner was entitled to a particular pay-scale or not. Such was prayed for by the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.18737 of 2007 but the petitioner failed up to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the said decision in case of Arindam Chattopadhyay (supra) will have no applicability to the facts of the present case. Hence, the said decision would be of no help to the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. In view of aforesaid, we find that the ultimate decision taken by the learned Single Judge for dismissal of the Special Civil Application, calls for no interference. Under the circumstances, the appeal is meritless. Hence, dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.