JUDGMENT 1. On 2.1.2014, the counsel for the petitioner was absent. 2. Today also, when the matter is called out, counsel for the petitioner is absent. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the penalty order dated 28.09.2001. 5. On 18.12.2000, a Memorandum of Charges containing the following charges were served upon the petitioner:- Charge No. 1: “The said Shri K.D. Singh failed to examine and process with appropriate care and prudence the case of regularization of unauthorizedly constructed covered area and illegally encroached open area on Plot No. 6, Coal Depot, Sector II, which is indicative of his action adversely affecting the interest of the Corporation and consequent benefit to the allottee. Charge no. 2: “That the said Shri K.D. Singh in an irregular and unauthorized manner got the area, held under unauthorized occupation in the name of the Coal Depot No. 6, Sector II, verified by his subordinate in a hurried manner on 21/10/2000 ignoring the normal practice of getting the entire area measured by an Amin and then fixed the monthly rental and also realized the outstanding dues on the basis of the former's incomplete report dated 21/10/2000. Charge no. 3: “That the said Shri K.D. Singh most negligently and casually dealt with the case and fraudulently obtained approval on 27/10/2000 for the regularization of only 1296 sq. ft. constructed area while his PPE Act Case filed vide no. TA/RO/2000-561 dated 12/10/2000 against the original allottee and present occupant of the said Coal Depot for unauthorized construction/occupation of a total area of 4494 sq. ft. was pending for disposal in the Court of Estate Officer under PPE Act, and also when he reported to Vigilance on 18/10/2000 of unauthorized occupation of a total area of 4755 sq. ft. (Cover+Open). Charge no. 4: “That the said Shri K.D. Singh willfully and deliberately suppressed the material facts with regard to the total area under unauthorized occupation and the effect of its partial regularization, the area indicated in the PPE Act case and the information given to the Vigilance on 18/10/2000 in his office notes dated 12/10/2000, 21/10/2000 and 25/10/2000 at pages 2124/N of the relevant file. Thus, Shri K.D. Singh, indulged in gross and serious irregularities by dishonestly getting the Leave & License Agreement executed with the party, with ulterior considerations the mala-fides.” 6. Thus, Shri K.D. Singh, indulged in gross and serious irregularities by dishonestly getting the Leave & License Agreement executed with the party, with ulterior considerations the mala-fides.” 6. An enquiry was conducted into the matter and the enquiry report dated 12.07.2001 was submitted, a copy of which was supplied to the petitioner vide letter dated 19.07.2001. The petitioner submitted his reply on 07.08.2001 and the order of penalty dated 28.09.2001, awarding the punishment of reduction to a lower stage of Rs. 8325/in the time scale of pay of Rs. 6500-250-7500-275-9425/- from his present basic pay of Rs. 8875/- with immediate effect, was passed. 7. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which, a copy of the enquiry report has been brought on record. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the penalty order dated 28.09.2001 itself would disclose that during the enquiry, the petitioner fully participated and he was afforded all reasonable opportunities to defend himself. On a consideration of the materials brought during the course of enquiry, the enquiry officer found the charges proved and, the disciplinary authority agreed with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer awarding major penalty. The learned counsel has further submitted that, neither before the enquiry officer nor before the departmental authorities, the petitioner produced any document, nor he was able to establish his defence and therefore, the enquiry officer has found the charges proved. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 9. From the enquiry report, I find that the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. From the penalty order dated 28.09.2001, I find that the disciplinary authority has also concluded that the misconduct committed by the petitioner warrants major penalty however, taking a lenient view the punishment as indicated hereinbefore has been awarded to the petitioner. 10. In “State of A.P. And Others vs. Chitra Venkata Rao” reported in (1975) 2 SCC 557 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 21. “The High Court is not a court of appeal under Article 226 over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. The Court is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Second, where there is some evidence which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. The departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226.” 11. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.