ORDER : Birendra Pd. Verma, J. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 21.11.2005 (Annexure-9) passed by the respondent District Collector, Gaya, the disciplinary authority, whereby, on the basis of findings recorded in a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, he was inflicted upon the punishment of stoppage of four annual increment with cumulative effect. By the aforesaid order it was further directed that the petitioner shall not be paid anything else except the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. 3. The appeal preferred by the writ petitioner against the impugned original order, as per Annexure-9, has been dismissed by the impugned appellate order dated 10.8.2006 (Annexure-10) passed in Appeal No. 8 of 2006 by the respondent Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya and, thereby, the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority has been affirmed. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned original order dated 21.11.2005 (Annexure-9) is not sustainable in law on the ground that mandate of Rule 17(1) of Bihar Govt. Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘Rules 2005’) has not been complied with. It was contended that no regular enquiry was conducted, yet by the impugned order dated 21.11.2005 (Annexure-9) major punishment has been awarded to the petitioner. It was next contended that the appellate authority has not taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has dismissed the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner. Therefore, it was pleaded that the impugned original order as also the appellate order may be set aside. 5. Learned Government Pleader-4, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has contested the matter and has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the writ petitioner. It was contended by learned State Counsel, by referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, that, in fact, the mandate of Rule 17(1) of the Rules, 2005 was fully complied with. It was contended by learned State Counsel, by referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, that, in fact, the mandate of Rule 17(1) of the Rules, 2005 was fully complied with. It was next contended that once the conducting Officer had submitted the enquiry report, copy of the same was served upon the petitioner and he was asked to file second show cause and after complying the rules of natural justice, finally the impugned order was passed by the disciplinary authority inflicting upon him the punishment, as indicated in the impugned order. 6. This Court initially was not fully satisfied with the averments made in the aforesaid counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3. Therefore, this Court had orally directed the learned State counsel to file further counter affidavit, bringing on record all the relevant documents in support of his assertion that rules of natural justice were fully complied with. 7. In the light of the aforesaid oral direction, a supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 has been filed today, which is taken on the record. A copy of the aforesaid supplementary counter affidavit was served upon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner on 10.9.2014. In this supplementary counter affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner filed his show cause and after conclusion of the regular departmental enquiry, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and, accordingly, cause was shown on 25.1.2006, which has been brought on record as Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit. It is contended by the learned State counsel that there has been no procedural irregularity committed either by the conducting Officer or by the disciplinary authority before the impugned order of punishment could be passed and, therefore, according to him, the impugned orders are fit to be affirmed by this Court. 8. Though a copy of the supplementary counter affidavit was served upon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on 10.9.2014, but till date the facts stated therein have not been controverted. This writ petition was heard in part on 1.9.2014 and, therefore, this Court does not propose to keep the matter pending any longer. 9. 8. Though a copy of the supplementary counter affidavit was served upon the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on 10.9.2014, but till date the facts stated therein have not been controverted. This writ petition was heard in part on 1.9.2014 and, therefore, this Court does not propose to keep the matter pending any longer. 9. It is well settled that while exercising the powers of judicial review, the High Court is not required to sit as an appellate authority. In fact, in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is required to examine the correctness and validity of the decision making process and not the decision itself. 10. On going through the different affidavits filed by the parties, this Court does not find that there has been violation of any mandatory provisions of the Rules, 2005 or any procedural irregularity was committed by the respondent authorities. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned. 11. In the result, the writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs.