JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Since both these writ petitions are filed by the same persons, we are disposing of the same by a common judgment. 2. We take Writ Petition (S/B) No. 263 of 2013 first, as the disposal of the same would give a quietus for the other writ petition also. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer (Grade E-1) in the year 1991. Later he came to be promoted finally up to the post of Senior Manager (Grade E-6) by order dated 01.04.2006. Disciplinary proceedings were commenced against him and Annexure no. 1 charge-sheet dated 19.10.2011 was issued by the third respondent. The petitioner gave Annexure no. 2 reply. Annexure no. 3 purports to be the enquiry report dated 25.05.2012. The petitioner came to be visited with a punishment of reduction to lower scale in the pay scale. He carried the matter in Appeal by Annexure no. 5-Appeal dated 03.11.2012. The disciplinary authority apparently not being satisfied with the quantum of penalty issued Annexure no. 6 show-cause noticedated 22.01.2013 to which Annexure no. 7 reply was given on 04.03.2013. By Annexure no. 8 dated 29.08.2013, the authority enhanced the punishment to one of removal from service. Aggrieved, the petitioner is before us. 3. We heard Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel on behalf of the respondents. 4. The charge against the petitioner was that in connection with the loan, which he took from a Bank, he had produced a certificate, which was forged. The certificate was to the effect that the respondents would deduct a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month from his salary. The certificate was alleged to have been issued by AGM (Contracts) of the respondents. 5. Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel for the petitioner does not have a case that there is any procedural impropriety in the matter of conducting the enquiry or further proceedings. What he would, however, submit is that the entire burden of proof was put on the petitioner. He would submit that actually the application for loan was made but he denied having produced such a certificate, which was alleged to be forged. 6. Per contra, Mr. What he would, however, submit is that the entire burden of proof was put on the petitioner. He would submit that actually the application for loan was made but he denied having produced such a certificate, which was alleged to be forged. 6. Per contra, Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents would first of all submit that the third respondent came to know of the alleged certificate when the bank wrote to the respondents that on the basis of the said certificate, which was given, the respondents were obliged to deduct a sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month and remit it to the Bank. It was thereupon, that the charges were leveled against the petitioner. In order to establish the case PW1, who is none other than the AGM (Contracts) was examined. According to Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents, PW1 has deposed that the signature is not his and the seal is also not the seal of his Office. The next witness to be examined on behalf of the management was the Loan Officer of the Bank from which the loan was taken by the petitioner. He has deposed that the certificate in question was indeed produced for the disbursement of the loan. It is further contended by Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was given opportunity on four occasions to give evidence, as was his request originally but he did not avail that opportunities. According to Mr. Alok Mahra, learned counsel for the petitioner, it was for the purpose of producing guarantor but it is not in dispute that no evidence was given on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the respondents would also submit that no reply has even been given to the enquiry report, for which an opportunity was given. He would finally point out that no doubt after the notice was given proposing to enhance the punishment by the authority, the petitioner also proceeded to get the criminal case compounded. 7. We would think that in the circumstances of this case, we cannot hold that there is any procedural impropriety or illegality as such. The quantum of evidence required to establish a case in a disciplinary proceeding is certainly not of the standard as required in a criminal trial. 7. We would think that in the circumstances of this case, we cannot hold that there is any procedural impropriety or illegality as such. The quantum of evidence required to establish a case in a disciplinary proceeding is certainly not of the standard as required in a criminal trial. In such circumstances, finding that the charge was established against the petitioner in the matter regarding the allegation which is one of production of forged document for the purpose of getting the loan cannot be overturned in the judicial review proceedings. There is no other contention raised before us. 8. In Writ Petition (S/B) No. 247 of 2013 also, disciplinary proceedings were commenced against the very same petitioner and a major punishment was imposed; but in view of the fact that we are upholding the punishment of removal granted against the petitioner, it may not be necessary to go into the same. In fact, no separate arguments were also addressed in this writ petition. In the circumstances, this writ petition will stand closed. 9. Accordingly, Writ Petition (S/B) No. 263 of 2013 will stand dismissed without any order as to cost and Writ Petition (S/B) No. 247 of 2013 will stand closed.