ORDER The petitioner while working as a Second Division Assistant in Sub Treasury, K.R. Nagar, Mysore District, a complaint was lodged before the Lokayukta police, that to pass bills and for issuing cheques, he had demanded an amount of Rs.1,500/on 29.05.1997. That the petitioner had received an amount of Rs.700/out of that. In furtherance of the said complaint, a trap was laid and the applicant was caught red-handed on 30.05.1997 while accepting the remaining portion of illegal gratification. In this regard, a case had been registered with the Lokayukta Police which later culminated and a chargesheet being placed against the petitioner in Special Case No.31/1998. 2. In the interregnum, the State Government referred the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for enquiry for Lokayukta. The Additional Registrar of Inquiries, Lokayukta was the Inquiring Officer. Charges were framed against the petitioner. On enquiry, the charges were held proved. It was recommended that he be compulsorily retired. A second show cause notice was issued and after considering the say of the petitioner, the Government on 07.06.2004 imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the instant petition before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, wherein by the impugned order, the same was rejected. Hence, the present petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and liable to be set aside. He contends that in terms of Rule14A of KCS (CCA) Rules a disciplinary enquiry can be entrusted to the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta only where the alleged misconduct of a Government servant has been investigated into by Lokayukta or Upalokayukta either under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 or on a reference from the Government. That in respect of investigation by the Lokayukta police, this sub-rule would be applicable. Therefore, he pleads that the matter be referred back to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the effect of acquittal by the Special Court. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate defends the impugned order. She contends that Rule14A would clearly apply to the case on hand. It cannot be held that Rule14A would not be applicable. 5. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the writ petition. 6. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate defends the impugned order. She contends that Rule14A would clearly apply to the case on hand. It cannot be held that Rule14A would not be applicable. 5. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the writ petition. 6. The Tribunal while considering Rule14A was of the view that Sub-Rule(2) referred to does not contain any wording as ‘alleged misconduct has been investigated into by the Lokayukta or UpaLokayukta either under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act or on a reference from the Government”. That the investigation mentioned in sub-rule is in relation to an allegation against a government servant. The power to sub-rule(2) of Rule14A given to the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta is not confined to investigations under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. That the power encompasses also the investigation done by the Lokayukta Police in respect of allegations against government servants. 7. On considering the reasons assigned by the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that the same does not call for interference. The interpretation sought to be made out by the Tribunal is just and proper. Sub-rule(2) of Rule14A clearly enunciates the power of the competent authority in the instant case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the same is opposed to Rule14A(2). 8. The learned counsel further contends consequent upon the acquittal of the petitioner in Special Case No.31/1998, the Disciplinary Authority should have considered the same. Therefore, he pleads that the matter be remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for the said purpose. We are unable to accept the said contention. Only because the petitioner has been acquitted of the offences under the provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it does not necessarily mean that no disciplinary proceedings should be initiated or continued. The disciplinary proceedings are different from the criminal proceedings under the provision of Karnataka Lokayukta Act. The degree of proof is different. In a disciplinary proceedings it is not proof beyond all reasonable doubt, but preponderance of possibility. Under these circumstances, it would serve no purpose to remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the effect of the acquittal by the Special Court. 9. Under these circumstances, we do not see any merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Rule discharged.