ORDER : V.K. SHUKLA, J. 1. G.P. Srivastava, Ex-Senior Administrative Officer, District Judgeship, Etah is before this Court assailing the validity of order dated 22.10.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.52685 of 2005 (G.P. Srivastava v. District Judge, Etah and another) dismissing the Writ Petition preferred on behalf of appellant assailing the validity of termination order dated 23.06.2005 passed by District Judge, Etah. 2. Factual matrix of the case leading to filing of present Special Appeal in brief is that petitioner-appellant was appointed as Senior Administrative Officer (S.A.O.) in Firozabad judgeship from where in administrative exigency he was transferred to Etah judgeship. In respect of misuse of authority by the petitioner-appellant, complaint was made by Mukut Bihari Lal, Shiv Saran Dixit, Anurag Bist, Bhagwati Prasad and Raghuveer Singh and on the said complaint being made, vigilance enquiry was got conducted and complaint regarding misuse of post and harassment of employees of Judgeship and demand of illegal money for transfer and posting etc. was said to be substantiated. Based on the said report, disciplinary enquiry was initiated against petitioner and the same was followed by suspension and a charge-sheet dated 26.02.2003 was served upon the petitioner-appellant levelling eight charges. Disciplinary Enquiry in question was entrusted to one Shri Y.C. Gupta, the then Additional District Judge Etah and to the charge-sheet in question, petitioner has submitted his reply on 10.04.2003. Petitioner, thereafter, proceeded to move an application for changing the Enquiry Officer before the District Judge on the ground that son of Shri Y.C. Gupta, Enquiry Officer was being taught by Shri Shyam Pal Singh, who was a complainant and was also a witness. On receiving the said application, the then District Judge called for the comments from Shri Y.C. Gupta, the then Additional District Judge and the District Judge thereafter has passed an order that Shri Y.C. Gupta would continue with the inquiry but not to record findings. 3. The inquiry in question proceeded and as far as petitioner is concerned when statement of witnesses were being recorded, he chose initially not to participate in the disciplinary proceedings and statement of Shri Ganga Prasad Steno, Shri Ram Vinod, Sessions Clerk; Shri Ravindra Pal Singh; Shri K.P.S. Yadav, Advocate; Shri Ram Niwas Rajput and Shri Harendra Mohan Saraswat were got recorded. Thereafter he has been participating but with reluctance. Thereafter he has been participating but with reluctance. The Enquiry Officer thereafter has been changed and one Shri Abhimanyu Kumar, Special Judge SC/ST Etah was entrusted to conduct the enquiry and by the time he proceeded with the enquiry, he was transferred and thereafter the inquiry was transferred to Shri Sabhapati Singh. Petitioner-appellant has sought repeated adjournments before Shri Sabhapati Singh and it has been submitted here that he was inclined to keep the inquiry pending. Thereafter, the inquiry has been handed over to Shri P.K. Chaturvedi, Special Judge, DAA Etah and Shri P.K. Chaturvedi has proceeded with the inquiry and gave full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellant although petitioner-appellant had been repeatedly buying time and ultimately the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. 4. Based on the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice to the petitioner-appellant. Petitioner has submitted his reply and thereafter the disciplinary authority has proceeded to pass an order for dismissal and the said order of dispensation of service has impelled the petitioner-appellant to file writ petition as aforesaid before this Court and this Court proceeded to dismiss the same by clearly mentioning that the case at hand was not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner-appellant has been holding a sensitive post and has been found guilty of misusing his post and of harassment of employees of Judgeship and demanding illegal gratification from the employees of judgeship and he has been given more than sufficient opportunity despite his efforts through out to delay the enquiry. This order in question once again has impelled the petitioner-appellant to be before this Court by way of filing present Special Appeal. 5. Shri G.P. Srivastava, petitioner-appellant is present in person and has tried to persuade us that entire proceedings are motivated with the sense of castism at the instance of one judge of this Court in order to get his man promoted as Senior Administrative Officer, and further the entire proceedings are vitiated on account of principles of natural justice being violated at each stage and the fact of the matter is that there was no misconduct committed by him as the then District Judge had on affidavit stated that petitioner-appellant was not responsible for delays in submitting files relating to the employees of the Judgeship. In view of this, the order passed by the Learned Single Judge and the order of disciplinary authority deserve to be set aside. 6. Shri Samir Sharma, Advocate, on the other hand, has contended that full opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioner-appellant and he had proceeded to examine 18 witnesses in support of his defence and the affidavit of District Judge is a procured affidavit only for the purpose of buttressing the petitioner's case after the enquiry was closed and the record speaks for itself and as such, no interference be made in the case in hand. 7. After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual situation that is so emerging is that appellant Gaya Prasad Srivastava was posted as Senior Administrative Officer in Etah Judgeship and against his activities, a nonymous complaint was made and on the said complaint, the Administrative Judge has passed order mentioning therein "Allegations are very serious and required a thorough inquiry against this Officer by an O.S.D. (Vigilance) of this Court" 8. Pursuant to the said directives, report in question has been submitted on 27.08.2002, wherein he found petitioner guilty of misuse of position of post. Based on these finding, regular departmental enquiry on administrative side was ordered by High Court, and then the Departmental Enquiry was initiated against petitioner and he was placed under suspension and inquiry was entrusted to Shri Y.C. Gupta, the then Additional District Judge, Etah. The charges levelled against the petitioner-appellant translated are as follows:- "(1) You had been working as Senior Administrative Officer w.e.f. 03.08.1998 upto 17.02.2003 in District Judgeship, Etah and you have been found remiss in the performance of your duties and also found guilty of misusing/abusing your administrative position and in relation to the same, following points are material:- (i) In the Departmental Enquiry No.5 of 2002 against Shri Shyam Pal Singh, Deputy Record Keeper, Class-III employee of District Judgeship, Etah, he was punished and against the punishment order, Shyam Pal Singh filed an appeal dated 27.08.2001. The said appeal was forwarded by the office of the District Judge, Etah to the High Court and the High Court in return asked for comments on the various points taken in the appeal vide its letter dated 03.11.2001. The said appeal was forwarded by the office of the District Judge, Etah to the High Court and the High Court in return asked for comments on the various points taken in the appeal vide its letter dated 03.11.2001. The District Judge Etah directed you as Senior Administrative Officer to prepare detailed para-wise comments on 13.11.2001 but you did not prepared the same till 13.08.2002 nor placed the same before the then District Judge, Etah. The delinquent employee Shyam Pal Singh has complained that when he reminded you as S.A.O. To prepare the para-wise narrative, you told him to give you 2kgs of Ghee in return for the favour and in-fact you did not at all pay heed to his request nor the directive of the District Judge, Etah to prepare the para-wise narrative and place it before him. (ii) Shri Ram Vinod, Class-III employee of District Judgeship, Etah had been punished in Departmental Enquiry Report No.5 of 1999 against which he had filed a memo of appeal on 31.10.2001 and the District Judgeship, Etah forwarded the same to the High Court. The High Court vide its letter dated 22.10.2001 asked the District Judge, Etah to send para-wise comments to the said appeal and the District Judge, Etah on 16.11.2001 instructed you to prepare para-wise narrative but you did not prepare the same till 13.08.2002 nor placed the same before the District Judge, Etah and as such, it could not be forwarded to the High Court in time. (iii) Shri Ravindra Pal Sharma, Class-III employee, was punished in Departmental Enquiry No.4 of 1999 against which he filed appeal on 12.09.2001, which was forwarded to the High Court and the High Court vide its letter dated 19.10.2001 asked for detailed comments from the District Judge, Etah. The District Judge, Etah instructed you to prepare para-wise narrative and place the same before him to be forwarded to the High Court but you did not prepared the same till 13.08.2003. (iv) Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Class-III Employee, was punished in Departmental Enquiry No.9 of 2000 against which he filed a memo of appeal which was sent by the office of the District Judge, Etah on 03.11.2001 to the High Court and the High Court vide its letter dated 19.01.2002 asked for detailed para-wise narrative. (iv) Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Class-III Employee, was punished in Departmental Enquiry No.9 of 2000 against which he filed a memo of appeal which was sent by the office of the District Judge, Etah on 03.11.2001 to the High Court and the High Court vide its letter dated 19.01.2002 asked for detailed para-wise narrative. The District Judge, Etah asked you to prepare the narrative but till 13.08.2002 you did not prepared the said narrative, nor placed it before the District Judge, Etah to be forwarded to the High Court. The aforesaid four cases clearly reflect that you Gaya Prasad Srivastava, Senior Administrative Officer, District Judgeship, Etah did not follow instructions issued by the District Judge, Etah in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad order and you kept back files relating all aforesaid cases for 8 to 10 months so that you could extract rewards (monitory or otherwise) from the concerned employee making unethical demands and did not prepared the para-wise narrative to be forwarded to the High Court. Depicted, gross negligence in carrying out the instructions of your superior officer and abused your position. (v) Shri Harendra Mohan Saraswat, Class-III employee, was found guilty in Departmental Enquiry No.2 of 1997 and on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the District Judge, Etah had issued a Show Cause Notice to the delinquent employee on 21.05.1999 asking the employee to send his reply to the same by 06.07.1999. You, Gaya Prasad Srivastava, S.A.O. did not put up the file relating to Shri Harendra Mohan Saraswat, the concerned delinquent employee before the District Judge, Etah for passing appropriate punishment orders thereon for a long time approximately for three years or more and when this incident came to the notice of the Vigilance Bureau in its inquiry, the Enquiry Officer, Vigilance Bureau vide his Fax Message dated 02.06.2002 to District Judgeship, Etah, only thereafter you submitted the file for orders before the then District Judge, Etah and he proposed punishment for withholding of two increments on 05.08.2002. You kept the inquiry file with yourself as Senior Administrative Officer for longer period only so that you could demand from Shri Harendra Mohan Saraswat illegal gratification for persuading the District Judge, Etah to pass an order of lesser punishment against the delinquent employee. You kept the inquiry file with yourself as Senior Administrative Officer for longer period only so that you could demand from Shri Harendra Mohan Saraswat illegal gratification for persuading the District Judge, Etah to pass an order of lesser punishment against the delinquent employee. In this way, in the performance of your duties and responsibilities as S.A.O., you committed gross negligence amounting to grave misconduct and you abused your position as Senior Administrative Officer to unnecessarily harass the delinquent employee and asked for illegal gratification from him. (vi) You as Senior Administrative Officer for the aforesaid tenure, while working in District Judgeship, Etah, tried to get illegal gratification from the employees concerned on the pretext of getting favourable transfers/posting orders for them and you even harassed the employees concerned at the time of making administrative arrangements. (vii) You, Gaya Prasad Srivastava, S.A.O District Judgeship, Etah, did not reside at district head quarters as is required under the Rules and for the whole of your tenure as Senior Administrative Officer, you commuted from Tundla to Etah and almost always came late to the office. (viii) You, Gaya Prasad Srivastava, S.A.O. District Judgeship, Etah filed your income tax return for the year 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 showing that you received H.R.A. of Rs.250/- per month lateron increased to Rs.500/-. You also claimed that you resided at Etah Head Quarter and spent Rs.800/- per month as rent paid to the landlord. This, however, was incorrect and contrary to records as during your tenure as Senior Administrative Officer in District Judgeship, Etah, you never resided at Etah but you commuted from Tundla daily. In this manner, you claimed H.R.A. when none was permissible to you under the Rules. In this manner you violated Rule 3 of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956." 9. Petitioner-appellant, in his turn, submitted his reply and after submission of the reply, statements of witnesses were got recorded wherein Shri Ganga Prasad Steno, Shri Ram Vinod, Sessions Clerk; Shri Ravindra Pal Singh; Shri K.P.S. Yadav, Advocate; Shri Ram Niwas Rajput and Harendra Mohan Saraswat, Clerk; Kunwarpal Singh Yadav, Advocate; Brijesh Kumar Misra, Advocate; Viresh Kumar Sharma, Advocate; Shyam Pal singh, Dy. Record Keeper; Ram Niwas Rajput, Reader and Anil Kumar Sharma, Clerk. 10. Record Keeper; Ram Niwas Rajput, Reader and Anil Kumar Sharma, Clerk. 10. Petitioner-appellant, in his defence, proceeded to make statement that all the witnesses were tutored and their statements were motivated and the charges that have been levelled are incorrect and the report that has been submitted by Vigilance Officer is incorrect and further he will produce his own defence witnesses. 11. The petitioner-appellant accordingly had filed several documents along with his explanation and also examined 18 defence witnesses namely Sarvsri Dinesh Kumar Kulshrestha, Reader to C.J.M. Etah; Suresh Chandra Gupta, Reader to Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah; Bhagwan Das Pal, Sessions Clerk; Rajesh Kumar; Krishna Pal Singh, Copyist; Sher Singh, Copyist; Rajvir Singh, Clerk, Sharad Kumar Srivastava, Reader; Ram Prakash, Clerk, Mohd. Wasi, Sadar Munsarim, Ram Sanehi Gupta, Advocate; Satish Chandra, Advocate; Sileti Singh, Advocate; Ajai Kumar Jain, Advocate; Hari Kishan Prasad Saxena, Advocate and Deepak Saxena, Advocate in his defence. 12. The accepted position is that, in spite of it being made clear that a last opportunity is being given to him to address the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner-appellant had chosen to seek an adjournment through his son, who is an Advocate knowing very well that Enquiry Officer was under transfer and thereafter the Enquiry Officer concluded the inquiry and looking into the delaying tactics of the petitioner-appellant, submitted his report after considering the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner-appellant and by concluding that it would be appropriate to record separate findings on separate charges, the Enquiry Officer in support of first four charges has recorded that they were similar in nature and accordingly proceeded to record findings simultaneously and for the said purpose he has proceeded to rely on the statements of PW3-Sri Ram Vinod, PW4-Sri Ravindra Pal Sharma, PW9 Sri Shyam Pal Singh and PW11-Sri Anil Kumar Sharma. Based on the statements made and based on the cross-examination that has been conducted by the delinquent employee, finding has been returned that for extraneous consideration petitioner has not been submitting comments called for. 13. Once such is the factual situation that a regular departmental enquiry had been held where witnesses had been examined and nothing had come out to impeach the testimony of the said witnesses, who had deposed against the petitioner-appellant, then there is no occasion for us to interfere with the said finding arrived at in the said inquiry. 13. Once such is the factual situation that a regular departmental enquiry had been held where witnesses had been examined and nothing had come out to impeach the testimony of the said witnesses, who had deposed against the petitioner-appellant, then there is no occasion for us to interfere with the said finding arrived at in the said inquiry. It is equally true that in his defence, petitioner-appellant had filed voluminous documentary evidence and also led oral evidence but evidence produced on behalf of petitioner-appellant did not shed any light on the charges levelled against him or on his innocence. Statement of Shyampal Singh (PW9), Ram Vinod (PW3), Ravindra Pal Sharma (PW4), Anil Kumar Sharma (PW11) before the Enquiry Officer had been categorical and duly supported by documentary evidence, as in case of each witness there had been punishment order against each one of them, each one of them had preferred appeal before High Court from where comments had been asked for and in pursuance thereof, the District Judge had asked for comments to be prepared by petitioner-appellant but same had not been sent due to extraneous consideration. Both the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority have relied upon the testimony of such witnesses in bringing home the charges. 14. Petitioner-appellant has proceeded to mention that he had prepared his comments and sent them to District Judge. We have perused his reply neither in the entire reply that has been submitted by the petitioner nor in the statement of defence witnesses, who have come forward to support the case of petitioner-appellant and who have been so examined, any single statement of fact has come to demonstrate as to at what point of time the comments in question had been got prepared and the same had been placed before the District Judge, Etah and even the District Judge, Etah, who had subsequently tried to support the case of petitioner-appellant by filing affidavit (after the inquiry was conducted), did not speak of the fact as to at what point of time the said comments in question were got prepared and were lying with the District Judge. 15. 15. Then, the evidence on record and the circumstances are speaking for itself that the employees at the judgeship of Etah has been harassed and victimised by petitioner-appellant and for extraneous consideration petitioner-appellant was not preparing the comments on time and on being charged, claimed that he had already submitted his comments to the District Judge, Etah but, as already mentioned above, in the entire reply of the petitioner-appellant as well as in the entire evidence led on behalf of petitioner-appellant, it is not indicated that at what point of time he had submitted his comments to the District Judge, who was responsible for delay in sending them to the High Court. 16. In view of this, once there are serious allegations of corruption, substantiated by documentary evidence and the Enquiry Officer, in his turn, had proceeded to believe such statement of facts and the Disciplinary Authority has given cogent reasons for inflicting punishment on the petitioner, we, in our exercise of authority of judicial review, cannot come to the rescue and reprieve of the petitioner-appellant. 17. From the record in question this much is reflected that petitioner has tried to cast aspersions on a High Court Judge and submitted that it was he, who was instrumental in initiating proceedings against him by getting complaints filed against him whereas the fact of the matter is that neither at the point of time when petitioner had proceeded to submit his reply, any such defence has been taken nor at any point of time petitioner-appellant had ever spoken in the said direction and clearly it is an afterthought. 18. Petitioner-appellant has been uncharitable to each one of the Enquiry Officers and his conduct for delaying the proceedings by all methods available to him has been noted in detail in the Enquiry Report. Petitioner-appellant at each stage of proceedings had expressed his no confidence in the ongoing disciplinary proceedings, without there being any genuine cause available to him. Petitioner-appellant has pointed a finger to the enquiry report also that such voluminous report could not have been prepared in such short time. Petitioner-appellant at each stage of proceedings had expressed his no confidence in the ongoing disciplinary proceedings, without there being any genuine cause available to him. Petitioner-appellant has pointed a finger to the enquiry report also that such voluminous report could not have been prepared in such short time. Officers, who are under transfer, do intend to finish their work and once the petitioners had been warned about the last date having been fixed and no further adjournment would be given and petitioner-appellant in his usual form tried to thwart the said proceeding, then rightly adjournment had been refused and report had been submitted. 19. Similarly, the affidavit of District Judge also exposes the petitioner-appellant as the said affidavit is completely silent on this aspect of the matter, as to when the comments had been prepared by petitioner-appellant and placed before District Judge. Affidavit of the District Judge (retd.) is clearly a procured one to save the petitioner-appellant, in view of this, the Learned Single Judge has rightly proceeded to uphold the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 20. It is true that there had been no charge of sexual misconduct and incidentally evidence has come on record in the said direction also, but the fact of the matter is that the same has not been made foundation and basis for imposing punishment, it is only on the charges levelled, on the evidence adduced, and charges having been proved by both oral and documentary evidence and the petitioner-appellant having been found to be guilty of gross negligence amounting to grave misconduct and covered with taint of corruption, the order of punishment has been passed. 21. Shri G.P. Srivastava, who appeared in person had argued on the quantum of punishment and pleaded that even though for the argument's sake it is admitted that the petitioner-appellant had been found guilty of gross negligence amounting to grave misconduct insofar as he did not submit the comments in time to be forwarded to the District Judge, Etah, the punishment of dismissal is not warranted in his case. 22. In the case of State of Rajasthan and another v. Mohd. Ayub Naz 2006 (1) SCC 589 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that insofar as judicial review of disciplinary proceedings are concerned, the Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution only exercises secondary review. 22. In the case of State of Rajasthan and another v. Mohd. Ayub Naz 2006 (1) SCC 589 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that insofar as judicial review of disciplinary proceedings are concerned, the Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution only exercises secondary review. While relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Om Kumar v. Union of India 2001 (2) SCC 386 it held that the role of Administrative Authorities is primary and that of the court is secondary, confined to see if the discretion exercised by the Administrative Authorities caused excessive infringement of rights. The Court had found in that case that the authorities had not omitted any relevant material nor had any irrelevant fact been taken into account nor any illegality was committed by the authority nor was the punishment awarded shockingly disproportionate. The Apex Court had also relied upon the judgment rendered by itself in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India 1995 (6) SCC 749 . 23. Almost the same view has been taken by another Division Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others v. T.T. Murali Babu 2014 (4) SCC 108 wherein relying upon its earlier decisions, the Apex Court considered the arguments advanced on behalf of respondents therein that unauthorized absence of employee for long periods even though proven did not amount to such gross misconduct so as to warrant dismissal and the High Court was right in directing reinstatement in service; held that it is the sole power of the decision maker to quantify the punishment once the charges of misconduct stand proved. Judicial Review is limited only to a situation where the award of punishment is grossly in excess to the allegations that have been found proved. The Court observed in paragraph 32 of the said judgment as under:- "Learned counsel for the respondent has endeavoured hard to impress upon us that he had not been a habitual absentee. We really fail to fathom the said submission when the respondent had remained absent for almost one year and seven months. The plea of absence of "habitual absenteeism" is absolutely unacceptable and, under the obtaining circumstances, does not commend acceptation. We really fail to fathom the said submission when the respondent had remained absent for almost one year and seven months. The plea of absence of "habitual absenteeism" is absolutely unacceptable and, under the obtaining circumstances, does not commend acceptation. We are disposed to think that the respondent by remaining unauthorisedly absent for such a long period with inadequate reason had not only shown indiscipline but also made an attempt to get away with it. Such a conduct is not permissible and we are inclined to think that the High Court has erroneously placed reliance on the authorities where this Court had interfered with the punishment. We have no shadow of doubt that the doctrine of proportionality does not get remotely attracted to such a case. The punishment is definitely not shockingly disproportionate." 24. The Supreme Court in the case of General Manager (Operations) SBI v. R. Periasamy 2015 (3) SCC 101 reviewed all law with respect to judicial review of disciplinary proceedings and quoted with approval the judgment rendered in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Jain Nalwaya 2011 (4) SCC 584 as follows:- 7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India : (1995) 6 SCC 749 , Union of India v. G. Ganayutham : (1997) 7 SCC 463 , Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana : (1999) 5 SCC 76 and High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashi Kant S. Patil (2000) 1 SCC 416 )." 25. Thereafter the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in paragraph 13 and 14 as follows:- "13. While dealing with the question as to whether a person with doubtful integrity ought to be allowed to work in a Government Department, this Court in Commissioner of Police New Delhi & Anr. v. Mehar Singh, held that while the standard of proof in a criminal case is proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental proceeding is merely the preponderance of probabilities. The Court observed that quite often criminal cases end in acquittal because witnesses turn hostile and therefore, such acquittals are not acquittals on merit. An acquittal based on benefit of doubt would not stand on par with a clean acquittal on merit after a full-fledged trial, where there is no indication of the witnesses being won over. The long standing view on this subject was settled by this Court in R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, whereby it was held that a departmental proceeding can proceed even though a person is acquitted when the acquittal is other than honourable. We are in agreement with this view. 14. In administrative law, it is a settled principle that the onus of proof rests upon the party alleging the invalidity of an order. In other words, there is a presumption that the decision or executive order is properly and validly made, a presumption expressed in the maxim omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta which means 'all things are presumed to be done in due form." 26. Consequently, challenge made sans merit, in view of this, present Special Appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.